Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis?

[Tisthammerw]

But, if the designer exists outside of this universe, and is therefore not subject to any possible natural and methodical discovery method, then it really doesn't matter if life was designed or not, because no scientific experiment will ever observe anything other than the random and accidental development of organic life.

Proving God via science is impossible and always will be, because otherwise God is not God.

You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) if you think intelligent design as defined here implies the existence of a deity.



why don't you focus all of your effort on trying to find evidence of an intra-universal designer, i.e., an alien life form who sometime long ago seeded the Earth with the beginnings of organic life?


Here's what I believe: I believe that testing for artificial intervention in Earth biology is scientifically possible, but trying to find the identity of the designer is (at least currently) beyond science's means of detection (as an [what you might consider] analogy, consider the existence of God).



Conversely, to affirmatively prove organic life is a natural process of matter --even a random, accidental process of matter, we must merely continue to experiment and observe until we succeed in producing life in a test tube, and until we do, the question remains open as to how it occurred.


Perhaps so. But then why accept abiogenesis over intelligent design? Why not propose both hypotheses as legitimate scientific possibilities, continue testing and say "time will tell which theory is correct"?

[Tisthammerw]

Again, I have a common response: please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to understand what I am talking about (and thus have a better idea of what you are criticizing).

ID requires an intelligent designer, a hypothesis which is unprovable and is not and never will be scientifically testable, or falsifiable.


Again, please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I explained how intelligent design was testable (provided an example of testable predictions) and falsifiable (provided an example of an experiment that would falsify the theory). In these types of debates, it helps if you know the position you are attacking.


1 - Where do you think I found your definitions, if not in post 142?


Judging from what you had written, the first post of this thread.


2 - What testable empirical predictions does ID make?


A response like this is precisely why I believed you did not read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I mentioned the empirical predictions there. I suggest you read the entire post to get a better idea of the theory you are attacking.



3 - Theories of abiogenesis attempt to conform to what we have learned about how the universe works.


This is a bit vague. Exactly what facts about "how the universe works" support abiogenesis over intelligent design?



The concept of ID has no basis in what we can see or measure

Intelligent design has testable empirical predictions--these predictions can at least in principle be seen and measured.

[kjkent1]

You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) if you think intelligent design as defined here implies the existence of a deity.I'm not much of a scientific expert, but I get paid to find flaws in an opponent's logical argument.

Here your hypothetical experiment of creating a primordial soup and allowing nature to take its course, as a means of falisfying the necessity of design, is a logical failure, because there is no means of ascertaining whether or not a designer caused what we may observe to be the random act of the creation of organic life.

The simple reality is that if a designer is responsible for abiogenesis, then a random act of creation would look no different than one which was deisgned. Which is what I already demonstrated earlier with my Gedanken.

Here's what I believe: I believe that testing for artificial intervention in Earth biology is scientifically possible, but trying to find the identity of the designer is (at least currently) beyond science's means of detection (as an [what you might consider] analogy, consider the existence of God).Well, unless you can propose an experiment which can actually test for a designer, your belief will remain merely philosophic and not scientific.


But then why accept abiogenesis over intelligent design? Why not propose both hypotheses as legitimate scientific possibilities, continue testing and say "time will tell which theory is correct"?As soon as you propose an experiment which can test for design, I'll concede that design theory is science. Until then, it's not.

Conversely, it's trivial to create scientific experiments to test for abiogenesis. You just mix up some chemicals under some specific starting conditions, and if you end up with a self-replicating molecule, you've demonstrated abiogenesis.

Of course, I'm trivializing the incredible difficulty of actually successfully accomplishing the above, but at least scientists can propose testable hypotheses, whereas I have yet to read a single experiment for design, which can successfully distinguish design from non-design.

As proof of this, I pose the following simple challenge: assume that God exists, and then identify any material object which is not designed.

[Jimbo07]

Perhaps so. But then why accept abiogenesis over intelligent design? Why not propose both hypotheses as legitimate scientific possibilities, continue testing and say "time will tell which theory is correct"?

Actually, this is what will happen without accepting the political position of ID. Tests and observations will go on. ID is not needed as a theory, because if there is any evidence, it will lead in that direction anyway. Since there isn't any evidence leading in the direction of ID, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it will remain a rejected scientific theory, and only have traction in the realm of popular culture.

ID hasn't been rejected by some 'Occult Scientists' Conspiracy.' It's not accepted because of its lack of evidence, its lack of practical application, and its presupposition of an end result, inconsistent with the practice of science.

Rejecting ID is the practical approach (although if you buy the beer, I'd be happy to ruminate about it at 2 a.m. ;)).

[Schneibster]

Your highly artificial and totally scientifically inconsistent means of ignoring the logical consequences of your hypothesis is a completely unscientific means of attempting to find the truth. You view a hypothesis as something you try to prove, not something you try to disprove. The fact that I can disprove it so easily is why it is not scientific.

[fishbob]

A response like this is precisely why I believed you did not read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I mentioned the empirical predictions there. I suggest you read the entire post to get a better idea of the theory you are attacking.

. . . . . .

Intelligent design has testable empirical predictions--these predictions can at least in principle be seen and measured.

Your method of falsifying ID is to prove abiogenesis by letting undirected chemical reactions take their course. The testable empirical prediction of ID is that abiogenesis is wrong?
How many lifetimes do you expect this study to run? In the meantime, ID is not falsified? Get serious.

[Mojo]

Your method of falsifying ID is to prove abiogenesis by letting undirected chemical reactions take their course. The testable empirical prediction of ID is that abiogenesis is wrong? This is par for the course: for example Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument for ID is basically that certain features of living things can't have been evolved by natural selection so they must have been designed. Michael Behe: Well, yeah, sure. But the question is: exactly how did life get here? Was it by natural selection and random mutation or was it by something else? Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1567967,00.html).

Dembski's argument is based on probability, i.e. that life is too unlikely to have evolved so it must have been designed, and on an apparently unsupported assertion which he calls the "law of conservation of information".

No evidence for ID in itself ever seems to be put forward: the claim is always that the theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong so ID must be right.

It's a false dilemma on top of an argument from ignorance.

Tisthammerw has tried to distance himself from these people, but he's basically using the same arguments.

[Mojo]

See also the recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75035) in which someone asked for papers that supported ID rather than attacking evolution.

[steenkh]

Steenkh, you can find the predictions in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).
Yes, sorry, I had forgotten.

However, I really only find a single prediction, and as it has been pointed out, the theory of abiogenesis involves millions of years to work, and a prediction that "undirected" chemical reactions to create life from non-life will never happen, is not likely to be disproved within a reasonable time span, regardless of the truth value of either theory. And it has also been pointed out that "undirected" is difficult to define. If we perform abiogenesis in a lab, you could criticise the experiment for being "directed"; and we can point out that even if it took millions of years for a primordial soup to develop life, it cannot be proved that this did not happen under the direction of a "creator".

[Tisthammerw]

I'm not much of a scientific expert, but I get paid to find flaws in an opponent's logical argument.

Here your hypothetical experiment of creating a primordial soup and allowing nature to take its course, as a means of falisfying the necessity of design, is a logical failure, because there is no means of ascertaining whether or not a designer caused what we may observe to be the random act of the creation of organic life.


Why is this true? If we set up conditions identical to those of the primeval earth, don’t interfere and merely watch what happens, and we see bacteria coming about spontaneously, why would this not demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary? It seems this is as close to falsification as science can get.


Well, unless you can propose an experiment which can actually test for a designer, your belief will remain merely philosophic and not scientific….I have yet to read a single experiment for design, which can successfully distinguish design from non-design


The best way is to test for the second prediction I mentioned in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). The tricky part is deciding when the obstacles are serious “enough.” Nonetheless testing for design is commonplace, e.g. in forensic science where a pathologist determines if a body died from natural causes or artificial intervention (e.g. murder). Archaeologists routinely test for design (however intuitively) when picking up artifacts. Design is not an inherently unscientific concept, and yet it almost seems that way when some scientists propose it be applied to biology.



Conversely, it's trivial to create scientific experiments to test for abiogenesis. You just mix up some chemicals under some specific starting conditions, and if you end up with a self-replicating molecule, you've demonstrated abiogenesis.


Technically that’s not true, because a self-replicating molecule isn’t the same thing as life. Still, the general idea is valid. If the specific starting conditions are identical to the primeval Earth and life results, you have indeed demonstrated abiogenesis is at least possible. However, notice that you also falsify intelligent design.

The tricky part here is arguing why abiogenesis is a better scientific theory than intelligent design. Having a known possible mechanism (i.e. a known possible way it could have happened, e.g. in getting amino acids) is indeed helpful support for abiogenesis. But when it comes to a known possible mechanism, abiogenesis loses to intelligent design. There is a known possible mechanism for artificial intervention to create RNA and DNA (human scientists do so all the time) but there is no known possible mechanism for abiogenesis to do so, instead abiogenesis runs into severe obstacles. So why accept abiogenesis over intelligent design?



I have yet to read a single experiment for design, which can successfully distinguish design from non-design.

As proof of this, I pose the following simple challenge: assume that God exists, and then identify any material object which is not designed.

I'm not sure what relevance this challenge has, since artificially creating life does not imply the existence of a deity. Still, I'll play along to see where this goes. Snowflakes are not designed, we see them form spontaneously all the time.

[Tisthammerw]

ID hasn't been rejected by some 'Occult Scientists' Conspiracy.' It's not accepted because of its lack of evidence, its lack of practical application, and its presupposition of an end result, inconsistent with the practice of science.


Let's get down to the nitty gritty (i.e. specifics) of the question: why is abiogenesis a scientifically superior theory? For instance, you cite "lack of evidence." Like it or not, the theory does make testable empirical predictions that are to at least some extent confirmed by observation (see #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)). What evidence does abiogenesis have that makes it a better scientific theory? Put the evidence forward and we'll see if intelligent design can match it.

[Tisthammerw]

Your method of falsifying ID is to prove abiogenesis by letting undirected chemical reactions take their course. The testable empirical prediction of ID is that abiogenesis is wrong?


It involves that, but a more accurate wording of the prediction is "We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary." If we carried out an experiment demonstrating a possible means how life could have arisen under undirected chemical reactions, then intelligent design is falsified.



How many lifetimes do you expect this study to run?


How do you know it requires several lifetimes? Keep in mind there is no known chemical process (long or short) for abiogenesis to create life. It's possible (though unlikely in my view) that scientists will find a means for abiogenesis to create life in a week.

Consider this. Scientists can use artificial intervention to create RNA and DNA. Why is there no known mechanism for abiogenesis to do so? Is it that the laws of chemistry operate more slowly when someone is not watching? No. Think of it like a groundhog crossing a thousand lane highway. There are serious obstacles for natural processes, and an intelligent designer can get around them. Maybe there's an undiscovered means for abiogenesis to overcome those obstacles (maybe there's an undiscovered means for nature to create an airplane) but in the meantime intelligent design predicts we'd find such obstacles.

In any case, the point is this: intelligent design is at least potentially falsifiable by a mundane (i.e. barring things like time machines) experiment. The same is not true for abiogenesis.

[Tisthammerw]

However, I really only find a single prediction, and as it has been pointed out, the theory of abiogenesis involves millions of years to work, and a prediction that "undirected" chemical reactions to create life from non-life will never happen, is not likely to be disproved within a reasonable time span, regardless of the truth value of either theory.


For the record, we don't know (though it may be often assumed) that abiogenesis requires millions of years to work. We don't know of any chemical process--long or short--capable of creating life. It may be that we discover next week a spontaneous chemical process that can create life within thirty days. It's a possibility that science cannot disprove, even if such an event seems intuitively unlikely.

Also, keep in mind what it means for a theory to be "falsifiable." Intelligent design is potentially falsifiable. It is possible in principle for an experiment to demonstrate intelligent design is false (as far as science can obtain falsifiability anyway).

Don't forget, there are two predictions of intelligent design. Why did you dismiss the second one?



And it has also been pointed out that "undirected" is difficult to define. If we perform abiogenesis in a lab, you could criticise the experiment for being "directed"


Not if the conditions resemble the primeval Earth. Besides, what if we observed a naturally occurring primordial ooze forming life?

[fishbob]

It involves that, but a more accurate wording of the prediction is "We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary."

And that wording demonstrates clearly one of the ways in which ID is not science. There are unknown numbers of possible reasons that we might never find the chemistry that led to life. There is no correlation between ID and your prediction. And ID is not falsified even if we do find the precise chemistry that could lead to life.

[wwitzke]

Why is this true? If we set up conditions identical to those of the primeval earth, don’t interfere and merely watch what happens, and we see bacteria coming about spontaneously, why would this not demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary? It seems this is as close to falsification as science can get.


It may "prove," in a sense, that ID is not necessary, but it won't falsify ID. The fact is that, if there is some force at work that has intelligently designed life on Earth, especially some extra-dimensional god person, then there is no way for us to know if what we observe naturally or experimentally is the result of random chance, or if it's the result of some guiding hand. We won't know this because it is always possible that an intelligent designer with that kind of power and knowledge could design by means that, to us, look like random chance, and, thus, we would be unable to tell the difference.

This is why ID is not falsifiable. ID requires that the designer be intelligent enough to make all observable evidence look the way it does (which points to "random chance"), which means that the designer will always be one step ahead of the scientists. No matter how many experiments scientists do, it will always be possible that there is some unseen designer pulling the strings. So, it's never going to be possible to falsify the intelligent design conjecture.

Incidentally, this is a good example of a reason why the ability to falsify a theory is so important: because a theory that is not falsifiable is essentially useless. What use is it to believe in a designer when the results of his designs merely lead us to the same scientific conclusions that we would have reached anyway?

Wayne

ETA: The term "extra-dimensional" was intended as farce, and I apologize a little for its use.

ETA2: Also, contrast this with the general theory of relativity. It would be easy to prove the general theory of relativity wrong by simply designing an object that could accelerate to, say, 1/2 the speed of light, but not experience any time dilation effects. Such an object being designed, built, tested and shown to operate as anticipated, without time dilation, would falsify general relativity. Of course, no such object has ever been built, because, for now, GR has held up quite well to scientific scrutiny (at least, as far as I know it has), but the fact that we can design an experiment like this shows that general relativity is a falsifiable theory.

[Tisthammerw]

It involves that, but a more accurate wording of the prediction is "We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary."


And that wording demonstrates clearly one of the ways in which ID is not science.


Why?


There are unknown numbers of possible reasons that we might never find the chemistry that led to life.


It is true that confirmation of the prediction does not uniquely confirm intelligent design. But so what? The underdetermination of theories guarantees there will be "unknown numbers of possible reasons" for any set of data for any scientific theory. If this were a valid reason to reject a theory as non-science, we'd have to reject all scientific theories. In any case, the main benefit for the existence of this prediction is that it makes intelligent design falsifiable. I agree that the fulfillment of this prediction is not enough to accept intelligent design.


And ID is not falsified even if we do find the precise chemistry that could lead to life.

Please explain. If we demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary, why wouldn't we demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary?

[Tisthammerw]

Why is this true? If we set up conditions identical to those of the primeval earth, don’t interfere and merely watch what happens, and we see bacteria coming about spontaneously, why would this not demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary? It seems this is as close to falsification as science can get.


]It may "prove," in a sense, that ID is not necessary, but it won't falsify ID.


Are you sure? You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to know what definitions I'm using in this thread (as well as to better understand the overall position I am taking).



....Incidentally, this is a good example of a reason why the ability to falsify a theory is so important: because a theory that is not falsifiable is essentially useless.


I wouldn't say that, though I do agree that falsifiability is a very good thing for a scientific theory to have.

Note that abiogenesis is not a falsifiable theory (and thus by your own words it would be "essentially useless"). We can conceive of an experiment that would falsify intelligent design, but we cannot do the same for abiogenesis. This is one of the reasons why I believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. ID is falsifiable and abiogenesis is not.

[fishbob]

It is true that confirmation of the prediction does not uniquely confirm intelligent design. But so what?

So what?
You claimed that confirmation of the prediction would be the thing that could falsify intelligent design. Now you claim that it doesn't after all.

So what?
This is more creationist dishonesty, this time wearing ID makeup.

[Tisthammerw]

It is true that confirmation of the prediction does not uniquely confirm intelligent design. But so what?


So what?
You claimed that confirmation of the prediction would be the thing that could falsify intelligent design.


No, I said the failure of the prediction would falsify intelligent design. Remember, the prediction we’re talking about is "We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary." If we did find such a means, this prediction would be a failure and intelligent design would be falsified (about as close as science can falsify a theory anyway).

What I was saying in the quote above is that the confirmation of this prediction does not uniquely confirm intelligent design (because of the underdetermination of theories, this is to be expected for any scientific theory, hence my “so what?” phrase). Nonetheless, I agree with you that the fulfillment of this prediction is not enough to accept intelligent design.

[kjkent1]

Why is this true? If we set up conditions identical to those of the primeval earth, don’t interfere and merely watch what happens, and we see bacteria coming about spontaneously, why would this not demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary? It seems this is as close to falsification as science can get.If you are proposing that we set up primordial conditions and that a self-replicating molecule appears, every time we set up those conditions within a reasonably predictable time frame, ala a chemical reaction, then that would certainly qualify as a scientific proof, demonstrating that abiogenesis is chemically possible.

But the experiment doesn't falsify ID, because the designer could have intended the universe to be designed so that such conditions would produce self-replicating molecules from primordial conditions.

You are setting up a false premise: the axiom that a designer affirmatively exists. This permits you to propose a test to falsify that axiomatic existence. Such a test is baseless unless you first prove that the designer exists, and you have proposed no test which can prove this.

However, your proposed test is certainly an adequate scientific proof of abiogenesis, because if the axiom is that the designer does not exist, and the test repeatably produces a self-replicating molecule out of primordial conditions, that would satisfy the rules of science (hypothesis->repeatable->experiment, conclusion drawn from observation).

Of course, you can argue that I should have to prove that the designer doesn't exist, but if you do, then you are effectively saying that all unknowns are true until proved false, rather than false until proved true -- a position which destroys the entire foundations of science, because where everything not proved false is true, there is no reason to investigate anything, because as long as I refrain from investigating, whatever I believe is true by default.

So, if you propose that an ID exists, it falls to you to affirmatively prove it, and not merely negate alternatives one at a time.

ID is not a default, just because you want to believe it so.

[wwitzke]

Are you sure? You might want to read post #142 to know what definitions I'm using in this thread (as well as to better understand the overall position I am taking).

Yes, I'm quite sure.

Note that abiogenesis is not a falsifiable theory (and thus by your own words it would be "essentially useless"). We can conceive of an experiment that would falsify intelligent design, but we cannot do the same for abiogenesis. This is one of the reasons why I believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. ID is falsifiable and abiogenesis is not.Ignoring the reference to abiogenesis not being falsifiable as a theory for the moment, I should address that I stated in my previous post, in simple terms, that ID is not falsifiable. If your definitions of ID and falsifiability are different from what are generally accepted, then you should dispense with that terminology. At best, it does a disservice to the discussion to redefine well understood terms in unfamiliar ways.

If, instead, you have issues with the logic of my reasoning, then please address those issues. My argument was, in even simpler terms:

a) Assuming that observable facts point to random chance
b) If there is an intelligent designer, then the ID must have created life in such a way that the evidence would appear as we observe it, i.e. to point to random chance
c) If an intelligent designer creates life so that the evidence appears to point to random chance, we will never be able to design an experiment, and collect evidence, that will point away from a designer, since any evidence we collect might just be fabricated by the intelligent designer to look like it points elsewhere

Conclusion: ID is not falsifiable.

Also, notice that this chain of reasoning works even if the evidence does not point to random chance. For instance, replace "random chance" with "Sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure."

Even if we had experiments that proved, conclusively (which I'm not even sure is possible in general for anything at all), that a particular method of abiogenesis was possible, it would not falsify ID, because the actual process that did occur may not have been the process that was discovered experimentally, and intelligent design is still not falsified. Even if we were able to prove that the experimental process was the exact process that occurred, ID still wouldn't be falsified because the ID hand may have still played a part in bringing together the ingredients, setting the scene, moving the particles around, and so forth. If a intelligent designer is powerful enough to create life on Earth, why shouldn't the designer be powerful enough to have an arbitrarily large or small impact on that beginning of life?

Now, it might be possible to falsify theories that individual intelligent designers originated life on Earth, as long as they aren't super-powerful gods-from-on-high. For instance, it might be possible to falsify the theory that humans gave rise to life on Earth. However, in order to falsify an individual intelligent designer, we must know something about that proposed theoretical designer in order to frame experiments and observations to disprove the theory. For instance, if "species-X from outer space" were proposed, then a possible falsification for the theory that "species-X created life on Earth" would be experiments or observations showing that species-X did not exist at the time that life began on Earth. That would, however, require that we know where "species-X" lived in the Universe so that we could commence with observation and (if necessary) experimentation.

However, we could never falsify the theory that some unspecified intelligent designer gave rise to life on earth, because there would be no way to pin down enough information about every single possible intelligent designer to formulate a falsification experiment, and no amount of proof for any method of abiogenesis can possibly rule out ID. ID is simply not falsifiable.

Now, to address your claim that abiogenesis is not falsifiable: Abiogenesis is, simply, a fact, not a theory. This is in large part paraphrased from the TalkOrigins website. . . I'd give you the address, but, alas, I'm not yet allowed. Abiogenesis means, literally, life arising from non-life, and regardless of how you imagined life came to be on the Earth, it is true that at one point there was no life, and now there is life, so somewhere in-between those two points in time abiogenesis must have occurred. Even creationism is a theory of abiogenesis, as the intercession of an intelligent designer does not negate the fact that at one point there was no life, and now, *poof!*, there is!

Wayne

[Tisthammerw]

If you are proposing that we set up primordial conditions and that a self-replicating molecule appears, every time we set up those conditions within a reasonably predictable time frame, ala a chemical reaction, then that would certainly qualify as a scientific proof, demonstrating that abiogenesis is chemically possible.

But the experiment doesn't falsify ID, because the designer could have intended the universe to be designed so that such conditions would produce self-replicating molecules from primordial conditions.


You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to know the theory you're criticizing. The experiment would establish that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life, just as they aren't necessary for a person to die of a heart attack. Thus ID would be falsified with this experiment.



You are setting up a false premise: the axiom that a designer affirmatively exists. This permits you to propose a test to falsify that axiomatic existence. Such a test is baseless unless you first prove that the designer exists, and you have proposed no test which can prove this.


Where does this "false premise" and "axiom" come from? And where is it applied that it becomes unacceptable?

In any case, this axiom is certainly not necessary to falsify intelligent design--else it wouldn't actually falsify it.



So, if you propose that an ID exists, it falls to you to affirmatively prove it, and not merely negate alternatives one at a time.

ID is not a default, just because you want to believe it so.

It sounds like you're referring to the second prediction. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that the fulfillment of the second prediction would not constitute sufficient evidence. But why not? If life began to exist and natural processes are not reasonably capable of producing it, what other alternative is there? After all, isn't that how archaeologists intuitively infer design?

And then there’s the million dollar question: what makes abiogenesis a scientifically better theory than intelligent design (recall the definitions being used here)?

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I'm quite sure.
I don't doubt it, but since it failed to convince you I suspect Tisthammerw will continue to.

However, we could never falsify the theory that some unspecified intelligent designer gave rise to life on earth, because there would be no way to pin down enough information about every single possible intelligent designer to formulate a falsification experiment, and no amount of proof for any method of abiogenesis can possibly rule out ID. ID is simply not falsifiable.

Now, to address your claim that abiogenesis is not falsifiable: Abiogenesis is, simply, a fact, not a theory. This is in large part paraphrased from the TalkOrigins website. . . I'd give you the address, but, alas, I'm not yet allowed. Abiogenesis means, literally, life arising from non-life, and regardless of how you imagined life came to be on the Earth, it is true that at one point there was no life, and now there is life, so somewhere in-between those two points in time abiogenesis must have occurred. Even creationism is a theory of abiogenesis, as the intercession of an intelligent designer does not negate the fact that at one point there was no life, and now, *poof!*, there is!

Wayne
Well said. Also, hello and welcome :) .

[wwitzke]

I don't doubt it, but since it failed to convince you I suspect Tisthammerw will continue to.


Well said. Also, hello and welcome :) .

Thank you, CapelDodger. It's wonderful to be here :-D (I'd smiley better, but haven't reached the magic 15 yet.)

Wayne

[Schneibster]

Now, to address your claim that abiogenesis is not falsifiable: Abiogenesis is, simply, a fact, not a theory. This is in large part paraphrased from the TalkOrigins website. . . I'd give you the address, but, alas, I'm not yet allowed. You probably had this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/) in mind, or one it links to.

Abiogenesis means, literally, life arising from non-life, and regardless of how you imagined life came to be on the Earth, it is true that at one point there was no life, and now there is life, so somewhere in-between those two points in time abiogenesis must have occurred. Even creationism is a theory of abiogenesis, as the intercession of an intelligent designer does not negate the fact that at one point there was no life, and now, *poof!*, there is!Well done. Slice it how you will, it must have come from somewhere.

Please add my welcome to CD's.

[immaterial]

Proving God via science is impossible and always will be, because otherwise God is not God.

Why?

And God defined as: ?

--
im

[kjkent1]

You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to know the theory you're criticizing. The experiment would establish that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life, just as they aren't necessary for a person to die of a heart attack. Thus ID would be falsified with this experiment.My response here was to your prior reply asking me to clarify my first response to your post stating that I "might want to read post #142." So, I have responded to your original query and clarified where you do not understand how it related. You now refer me back to post #142.

Which is a little weird.

Where does this "false premise" and "axiom" come from? And where is it applied that it becomes unacceptable?It is a false premise to assume the axiom that a designer exists as a requirement of a hypothesis for an experiment, the purpose of which is to falsify the existence of the designer who is not proved. This is true, because from a scientific perspective, nothing exists, until it is observed. No universal designer has been observed, therefore none exists.

In any case, this axiom is certainly not necessary to falsify intelligent design--else it wouldn't actually falsify it.If the axiom of the existence of a designer is not necessary to falsify intelligent design, then you should have no trouble proposing an experiment which does not presuppose the existence of a designer. However, your current experiment, which is to create a primordial soup and wait for abiogenesis to occur, does in fact impliedly presuppose such a designer, because your hypothesis is that if the experiment succeeds in producing life, then the designer's existence is falsified.

If the designer is presumed to not exist, then there is no reason to conduct the experiment to falsify the designer's existence.

It sounds like you're referring to the second prediction. You seem to be saying (correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that the fulfillment of the second prediction would not constitute sufficient evidence. But why not? If life began to exist and natural processes are not reasonably capable of producing it, what other alternative is there? After all, isn't that how archaeologists intuitively infer design?The other alternative is that the designer caused what appears to be the spontaneous creation of life from the primordial soup.

And then there’s the million dollar question: what makes abiogenesis a scientifically better theory than intelligent design (recall the definitions being used here)?The answer is that abiogenesis can be affirmatively and directly confirmed experimentally, while intelligent design cannot, because there is no scientific means of measuring an entity which is beyond scientific measurement.

Where do I collect the million dollars?

[kjkent1]

Why?

And God defined as: ?

--
imI don't play into other posters' use of the Socratic method, because to do so is to allow others to control the substance of the conversation.

Please make an affirmative argument supporting your position,

[Tisthammerw]

Are you sure? You might want to read post #142 to know what definitions I'm using in this thread (as well as to better understand the overall position I am taking).


Yes, I'm quite sure.


Are you? You said,


"It may "prove," in a sense, that ID is not necessary, but it won't falsify ID.


This statement doesn't make much sense considering the definition of ID I'm using in this thread. Because if you are, you are essentially saying it may prove that ID is not necessary, but it doesn't prove ID is not necessary. You might want to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) again just to be sure you understand my position before you attack it.



Ignoring the reference to abiogenesis not being falsifiable as a theory for the moment, I should address that I stated in my previous post, in simple terms, that ID is not falsifiable.


I gave you an example of an experiment that would falsify it.



If, instead, you have issues with the logic of my reasoning, then please address those issues. My argument was, in even simpler terms:

a) Assuming that observable facts point to random chance
b) If there is an intelligent designer, then the ID must have created life in such a way that the evidence would appear as we observe it, i.e. to point to random chance


(a) Seems a bit question begging, but never mind that for the moment. Suppose it is true that we demonstrate in a laboratory that intelligent causes are not necessary to create Earth-type life. That will disprove the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life on Earth, correct?

The mistake in your reasoning is that you don't seem to be aware of what theory it is you're attacking. That's why I asked "Are you sure?" back in post #517 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2395732&postcount=517).



Now, to address your claim that abiogenesis is not falsifiable: Abiogenesis is, simply, a fact, not a theory.


Apparently, it is a "fact" that cannot be falsified by any conceivable experiment. I have provided you with a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Can you do the same for abiogenesis? If so I would like to see it.



Abiogenesis means, literally, life arising from non-life, and regardless of how you imagined life came to be on the Earth, it is true that at one point there was no life, and now there is life, so somewhere in-between those two points in time abiogenesis must have occurred. Even creationism is a theory of abiogenesis


I suggest we just stick with the terms as they're defined in this thread. (You can see them in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).)

[Schneibster]

Again, please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I explained how intelligent design was testable (provided an example of testable predictions) and falsifiable (provided an example of an experiment that would falsify the theory). In these types of debates, it helps if you know the position you are attacking.I did. If you continue ignoring this response to it, I'll simply put you on mute as another woo.

Stop ignoring the fact that you can't ever disprove the designer. It's stupid.

[Tisthammerw]

My response here was to your prior reply asking me to clarify my first response to your post stating that I "might want to read post #142." So, I have responded to your original query and clarified where you do not understand how it related. You now refer me back to post #142.

Which is a little weird.


I am only doing so because you still don't seem to understand the position you're criticizing. You don't even seem to have read the definition the theory you're criticizing.



It is a false premise to assume the axiom that a designer exists as a requirement of a hypothesis for an experiment, the purpose of which is to falsify the existence of the designer who is not proved.


Here's what's going on. If theory A, then ~B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified. You don't have to assume the designer exists for the experiment to falsify ID.


If the axiom of the existence of a designer is not necessary to falsify intelligent design, then you should have no trouble proposing an experiment which does not presuppose the existence of a designer.


And I did that, did I not? If we observe a naturally occurring primordial soup (or simulate identical conditions of the primeval Earth) and watch life spontaneously come about, we disprove the necessity of an intelligent designer do we not? And this experiment is done without presupposing the existence of a designer, correct?



However, your current experiment, which is to create a primordial soup and wait for abiogenesis to occur, does in fact impliedly presuppose such a designer, because your hypothesis is that if the experiment succeeds in producing life, then the designer's existence is falsified.


No, that's not what my hypothesis is. What we are doing is falsifying the necessity of a designer. Once we do that, ID theory is disproved. Agreed?




And then there’s the million dollar question: what makes abiogenesis a scientifically better theory than intelligent design (recall the definitions being used here)?


The answer is that abiogenesis can be affirmatively and directly confirmed experimentally


At least you're trying, but let's get down to the specifics. What specific experimental evidence can you present that makes abiogenesis scientifically better than intelligent design? (I request you to read post #142 before you answer, as you might put forth something that I have already responded to repeatedly in this thread.)



because there is no scientific means of measuring an entity which is beyond scientific measurement.


Why is testing for artificial intervention is beyond scientific measurement?

[Schneibster]

You don't have to assume the designer exists for the experiment to falsify ID.You don't need to experiment to falsify ID.

[Tisthammerw]

ID requires an intelligent designer, a hypothesis which is unprovable and is not and never will be scientifically testable, or falsifiable.


Again, please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I explained how intelligent design was testable (provided an example of testable predictions) and falsifiable (provided an example of an experiment that would falsify the theory). In these types of debates, it helps if you know the position you are attacking.


I did.


It certainly doesn't appear that way. You said ID was not falsifiable, I pointed out that I described a conceivable experiment that would falsify the theory (in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)). You asked what predictions ID theory makes, even though I already answered this question (in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)). Are you quite certain you read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)?



Stop ignoring the fact that you can't ever disprove the designer. It's stupid.

Okay, let's put a stop to this right now. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying when I say intelligent design is falsifiable, so I'll just take the relevant portion of post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142), which is also from post #1 (I repeated the definition because a number of people didn't seem to be aware of what they were criticizing). Here's the definition of intelligent design this thread has been using since post #1.


Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.


How to falsify this theory? Simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary. There we go, theory disproved. Can we move on now?

[Schneibster]

How to falsify this theory? Simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary. There we go, theory disproved. Can we move on now?No. Intelligent design assumes a designer. This is untestable. It doesn't matter whether there is an experimental test of ID or not; there is not and can never be an experimental test for a designer. You continue to insist that the elephant isn't there. It's woo.

[kjkent1]

If we observe a naturally occurring primordial soup (or simulate identical conditions of the primeval Earth) and watch life spontaneously come about, we disprove the necessity of an intelligent designer do we not? And this experiment is done without presupposing the existence of a designer, correct?No.

First, if your experiment is conducted based on the presupposition that no designer exists, then there is no reason to conduct the experiment at all, because there is no longer any presumed designer's existence of which to falsify his/her/its necessity. IOW, you are performing an experiment which is intended to falsify the necessity for the existence of nothing and no one.

Second, if the experiment succeeds, then you have not proved the non-necessity of a designer, because you cannot know that the designer did not design the universe so as anticipate your experiment and thereby create the outcome which you observe as the result.

An experiment to prove design must be done by affirmative proof, not by falsification. You must find the designer within this universe and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification (just like you would do with any other designer who claims to have performed some experiment).

Nothing else will suffice.

PS. At this moment you have both a bona fide physicist and a licensed attorney disagreeing with your proposed experiment, as well as with your analytical logic. I do not suggest that both of us could not be wrong, and that you should accept an argument from authority. However, I do suggest that if you accept the idea that peer review has merit, that your peers in this forum find your position, both scientifically and analytically unreasonable, and that this suggests that you should seriously reconsider your position.

PPS. Evidentily Schneibster admits to not being a physicist (see infra). Still, he's your peer in this forum.

[Schneibster]

There are strong similarities between scientific and legal logic.

I wouldn't want to stand by and allow myself to be represented as a physicist, though I certainly appreciate the implied compliment, kjk. I'm merely a very knowledgeable amateur, with some engineering training.

[kjkent1]

There are strong similarities between scientific and legal logic.

I wouldn't want to stand by and allow myself to be represented as a physicist, though I certainly appreciate the implied compliment, kjk. I'm merely a very knowledgeable amateur, with some engineering training.If you're a very knowledgeable amateur, then you should just march into the nearest university physics department and offer to challenge the entire program for a Ph.D., because you're doing a pretty convincing job -- and I am not easily convinced of anything.

Which reminds me. Somewhere you mentioned that you're an atheist. So, to be fair, I'm agnostic, i.e., God and I have an arrangement: we don't ask anything of each other.

[Schneibster]

I'd need a couple years of math, minimum, and probably have to give up my job to get it done that quick, just for a bachelor's. And that's assuming I'm even anywhere near as good as I think, a debatable point.

You're correct, I'm an atheist- but I don't put people down for not joining me. It's a personal choice.

I suppose it has as much to do with how I perceive religion, and what I have read in the Bible and how little the religion most people profess to follow has to do with it, as anything. Then there's the fact that I don't see religious people being any more good, or more to the point any less evil, than the general run of people who aren't- just more smug. And the worst of the evil religious people are some of the most evil people who have ever lived.

But enough of that- it belongs on a religion thread, not on SMM&T.

[Mojo]

You said ID was not falsifiable, I pointed out that I described a conceivable experiment that would falsify the theory (in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)). How does demonstrating that undirected abiogenesis is possible disprove ID?

It it possible that someone other than me is typing this (Mrs. Mojo has access to the computer, and I have the forum set up so I don't have to log on each time). Does this prove that I am not typing this?

[immaterial]

Why?

And God defined as: ?


I don't play into other posters' use of the Socratic method, because to do so is to allow others to control the substance of the conversation.

Please make an affirmative argument supporting your position,


Which is what I was asking you to do...

--
im

[wwitzke]

Are you? You said,


It may "prove," in a sense, that ID is not necessary, but it won't falsify ID.
This statement doesn't make much sense considering the definition of ID I'm using in this thread. Because if you are, you are essentially saying it may prove that ID is not necessary, but it doesn't prove ID is not necessary. You might want to read post #142 again just to be sure you understand my position before you attack it.

I gave you an example of an experiment that would falsify it.

(a) Seems a bit question begging, but never mind that for the moment. Suppose it is true that we demonstrate in a laboratory that intelligent causes are not necessary to create Earth-type life. That will disprove the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life on Earth, correct?

The mistake in your reasoning is that you don't seem to be aware of what theory it is you're attacking. That's why I asked "Are you sure?" back in post #517.

Apparently, it is a "fact" that cannot be falsified by any conceivable experiment. I have provided you with a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Can you do the same for abiogenesis? If so I would like to see it.

I suggest we just stick with the terms as they're defined in this thread. (You can see them in post #142.)

Okay, first, let's quibble about your "terms," since you seem rather insistent upon using nonstandard definitions. Apparently I was not clear enough in my previous posting. I will not use nonstandard definitions. I suspect that this sentiment is shared by most other members of this forum, and though I cannot speak for them, there seems to be a great deal of evidence to support my supposition based on the behavior of other members (i.e. they aren't using your definitions, no matter how many times you uselessly tell them to). If you're wondering why I won't use your nonstandard definitions, then let me explain.

First, using nonstandard definitions leads to confusion, both for readers and for people who are trying to join into the discussion. People are used to seeing familiar terms defined in familiar ways. At best, when they read a familiar term defined in an unfamiliar way, it makes it difficult to think about the discussion where that unfamiliarly defined term is being applied, and that's assuming they know the nonstandard definition in the first place. At worst, it makes discussions completely indecipherable. Even assuming that your "post 142" actually had anything to say about anything at all, which, incidentally, it doesn't, and certainly nothing relevant to what I've been saying, most people who peruse this discussion are going to look at the most recent posts and won't read post 142! I, for one, would prefer my comments to be decipherable to as many people as possible. Further, I would like to encourage others to join in the discussion, something that the redefinition of terms will actively discourage in part because of the confusion redefinition causes.

Second, it leads to inexactness. Since non-standard definitions will, necessarily double up definitions on familiar terms, using those terms suddenly makes it much more difficult to determine which definition should apply in any particular case. With redefinition of the term "experiment," if somebody uses that word then it is difficult to know which, if any, definition should apply for that use.

Third, when somebody uses a redefined word, the redefinition makes it possible for somebody to deliberately misinterpret what that person is saying, while maintaining a facade of credibility. I could, for instance, post something using the standard definition, and somebody could say, "Ah, but you're not using the definition that we are using!" Then, if I did use the redefined word, somebody could then say, "Ah, but that's not how that word is really defined!"

Fourth, as an extension of my third point, if I were to agree to use those redefined terms, it would then be much easier for my post to be entirely taken out of context, so that I could be made to seem like I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying. While this is always a possibility, it becomes much more of a possibility when the terms that we use in discussion aren't those that are in common use, and I will avoid, as much as I can, following a track that would knowingly open up my comments to that sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Fifth, it is completely unnecessary to redefine terms in this discussion. If you wish to argue a point on intelligent design that is not *exactly* intelligent design, then it is simple to spell out the differences when they actually occur in your argument so that there is never any doubt as to what definition you are using. Further, it is realistically no more difficult to continue to spell out those differences wherever necessary.

Sixth, and this is important, the statements I made cover every possibility, including those of your redefined terms. When I say "no experiment can falsify ID," that includes every experiment, including the one that you proposed, and I mean every reasonable kind of ID, including the ID that you are using.

Now, in case you are wondering if I consider you capable of the deliberate dishonesty that I have spelled out above, then the answer is a resounding "yes." Perhaps if you weren't so insistent upon people using your ridiculously redefined term, were willing to work with standard definitions while spelling out your arguments when they occur, addressed points that people specifically ask you to address without resorting to non-responsive rhetoric, and had successfully separated yourself from a large camp of people (creationists) that are known to use such tactics, then I might feel differently. Of course, if those conditions had already been met then I would never have needed to address this issue in the first place.

So, given the above, and the understanding that I will not be using your redefined terms, here are my answers to your questions.

First, as to whether I am sure, yes, I am still quite, quite sure that an experiment will not falsify ID. In order for my mind to be changed in that regard, I will have to be confronted with logical and reasonable arguments to the contrary that convince me. You have utterly failed to make any arguments to the contrary, and, as such, I am still quite sure. No matter how many times you ask me if I'm sure, the answer will still be yes if you continue to provide that giant, steaming crock pot of no argument that you are currently providing.

Incidentally, continuing to ask if I'm sure is an insult. In case you are unaware of why, which I doubt, I will explain. You seem to be implying that you have some great insight to my mind that I don't have, despite the fact that I am currently in possession of it, and have far greater experience with it than you could possibly have. This sort of implication is an insult, implying that, despite my possession and experience, I am somehow incapable of knowing my own mind.

(To CarpelDodger: Good call on this one. You were right, he continued to doubt, despite my clear statement. I probably shouldn't be surprised, since you have over 6,000 posts under your belt, but, still, color me impressed :-) )

Continuing on: Saying that ID is not necessary, but that it is not falsifiable is not a contradiction. Falsifiability and necessity are not the same concepts. Falsifiability describes the ability to design an experiment that falsifies, that is proves false, a theory. Necessity, on the other hand, describes the degree to which something must be, usually in regards to something else. If I say that ID is not necessary for life to begin on Earth, then I am saying, by standard definition, that it is possible for other theories to adequately explain the beginning of life, so ID isn't the only possible explanation. If I'm saying that ID is not falsifiable, then I am saying that one cannot design an experiment that will prove ID false. Not needing ID and ID actually being false are two completely different concepts. I'm surprised that, after 14 pages of arguing points around ID, falsifiability, and necessity, that you don't understand this. It really leads to the question: why would you argue about these things when you don't understand the definitions involved?

Regarding your "example experiment," I can only reiterate what I have already stated. My arguments cover your example experiment. In fact, my arguments cover every single experiment that might be proposed to falsify ID, including yours. If you want to argue that my logic is actually incorrect, then you must address this issue by actually attacking my logic or proving to me that my logic does not apply to your example. Merely telling me that you gave an example will not convince me since I obviously include your example experiment in the list of experiments that do not falsify ID. This applies every place where you insist that you have provided an experiment. In fact, stop insisting that you have provided an example experiment, because it will get you nowhere without addressing the issue that your example experiment fails to falsify ID for the same reasons that every other experiment fails to falsify ID.

Now, on to my logic, which you almost addressed. It was, actually, painful to see the point so thoroughly skirted. Next time, instead of saying "never mind for the moment," state your actual argument so that people, including me, understand what your criticism actually is. "Seems a begging question," without supporting logical argument, appears to be intended only to cast doubt without actually being able to move the discussion along. If you had any real points regarding the assumption, then you should have given them.

Then, you go on, a bit later, to tell me that I don't understand what theory I'm attacking, and that is the flaw in my argument. Well, again, similarly to my point about the word "experiment," the theories of intelligent design that I'm addressing includes your theory. I obviously intended to include every theory of intelligent design in the statements where I made no further specification, and I obviously intended more specific definitions in the statements where I made those qualifications. Seeing as I made no qualifications in my logical argument as to which kinds of intelligent design I was interested in addressing, I was obviously referring to every version of intelligent design. That, I reiterate, includes yours, unless, of course, your theory of intelligent design is so far removed from the standard definition of ID that it doesn't even fall into that category, but if this is the case why are you calling it intelligent design, and why are you even arguing?

Now, you ask: "Suppose it is true that we demonstrate in a laboratory that intelligent causes are not necessary to create Earth-type life. That will disprove the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life on Earth, correct?" So, now you're saying that your arguing for a theory of a theory. That is, the theory that the theory of intelligent design is necessary. Theory of a theory-. . . Fascinating that you don't see that proving the theory that the theory of intelligent design is necessary is false is not the same thing as proving that the theory of intelligent design is false. The theory of the theory of intelligent design being necessary, and the theory of intelligent design are two different theories. They aren't the same thing at all. Your argument completely falls apart if you are trying to prove that the theory of intelligent design is superior to other theories of abiogenesis through this argument, since you aren't even addressing the theory of intelligent design. So, I must answer by saying that with your statement and question you are completely failing to address your overall contention, that ID is somehow superior scientifically to other theories of abiogenesis.

Next, you continue to say that abiogenesis cannot be falsified, even though I've told you that it's a fact. And, that's fact, not "fact." Falsifiability is a distinction that can be applied to theories, not facts. If you fail to understand that it is a fact, that is not my problem, it is yours, because I have already explained succinctly what abiogenesis is and why it's a fact. If you don't understand this, then you need to do some research to determine both what abiogenesis actually means, and what facts actually are.

Given the above, it is useless to ask if an experiment can be proposed that will falsify abiogenesis, given that abiogenesis is a fact. However, let's pretend that you asked a better question, such as "Can you provide a sample falsification experiment for all theories of abiogenesis?" Well, since there are, potentially, an infinite number of theories for abiogenesis, I cannot provide a single, specific experiment that will cover each and every single theory, including intelligent design. But, that's really not a reasonable question, either, and if you think it is, then you are not a reasonable person. Expecting somebody to provide a single experiment that will prove an infinite number of theories wrong is not a reasonable thing to do.

However, I can provide a general model for abiogenesis that will demonstrate how falsification experiments could be formulated for specific theories of abiogenesis, if, for instance, you were to ask, "Can you provide an experimental design that could falsify a specific theory of abiogenesis?"

This model starts with the preconditions a0, a1, a2, ..., an, and has the steps s0, s1, s2, ... sk. Now, for brevity, let's say that -> means "leads to" and + means "combined with." So, for a specific theory, we might have:

a1 + a2 + a6 -> s0 +a3 -> s1 -> s6 + a5 -> s4 -> Life! Huzzah!

Well, that's a bit complicated. Let's make the steps labeled in order of occurrence so that earlier steps have lower k, and later steps have higher k. Also, the preconditions, while they might be used in individual steps, are still just preconditions that must exist in order for the process as a whole to work. While it is informative to apply those preconditions to the steps in which they are used, it isn't necessary for this model, since we're only trying to provide a way of formulating falsifying experiments. So, let's use this for our general model:

a0 + a1 + ... + an -> s0 -> s1 -> ... -> sk -> Life! Huzzah!

So, how can we use this model to show how a falsification experiment can be formulated for any particular theory of abiogenesis? Well, if any precondition can be shown to not have been the case at the time of abiogenesis, or any step can be shown to either be impossible or to not lead to the next step, then the theory will be falsified!

Let's take a more specific example: If a specific theory for abiogenesis has a precondition that there be a certain amount of carbon on the planet in order for abiogenesis to occur, say 3 e45 metric tons, then we could falsify that theory by proving that 3 e45 metric tons could not have been on the Earth at the time of abiogenesis. This could be done by looking at the amount of carbon currently existing on Earth, examining how much carbon Earth is losing and gaining every day/year/eon, examining ancient geological evidence, etc. etc.

The same can be used for intelligent design, which is probably the most vacuously simple of abiogenesis theories. You have preconditions that: a0) there is an intelligent designer, a1) he creates life in such a way that it gives rise to the evidence we observe. The only step is s0) the intelligent designer creates life! This theory is not falsifiable because: precondition a1 cannot be shown not to be the case at the time of abiogenesis, since it is impossible to rule out every single possible intelligent designer; precondition a2 cannot be shown not to have been the case at the time of abiogenesis, since it essentially says that every bit of observable evidence that scientists examine only look that way because the way the intelligent designer created things made it look that way, so even if we find evidence that seems to show this precondition to be wrong, it won't apply because the intelligent designer just made the evidence to appear that way; and step s0 cannot be proven impossible or be proven not to lead to life because we will never be able to know what s0 is!

So, there you go. A general model for formulating falsification experiments for theories of abiogenesis.

Wayne

ETA: Forgot to thank Schneibster for his welcome. Thanks Schneibster :-) Also, that link is very, very close to where I found the item that I was referring to. Thank you for posting it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Here's what's going on. If theory A, then ~B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified. You don't have to assume the designer exists for the experiment to falsify ID.
<snip>
This is the crux of your fallacious reasoning. You are then saying:
P1: If A then ~B
P2: ~B
C: Therefore, A

This is affirming the consequent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent), and is a logical fallacy. Proving B, or ~B, has no bearing on A.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is the crux of your fallacious reasoning. You are then saying:
I think Tist must have meant "If theory A, then B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified."

~~ Paul

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think Tist must have meant "If theory A, then B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified."

~~ Paul
even then it would be
P1: If A then ~B
P2: B
C: Therefore ~A

Which is still logically fallacious in this case, because he has failed to show P1 is true.

ETA: In fact, I would argue that P1 is false, because saying abiogenesis can occur or ID can occur, is a false choice dilemma.

[Eos of the Eons]

Folks who study dinos are so lucky. There are so many transitional forms that it makes my head spin.

The beginning of horned herbivores is fascinating.
Hey, we just found a new species: Albertaceratops nesmoi (http://www.cleveland.com/news/photos/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/cleve/view_gallery.ata?g_id=5827).

There are egg laying feathered dinos too. Hey, did you see the chicken that hatched with webbed feet like a duck? Cool mutation that is more useful to a duck though.

Biology is fascinating.

[kjkent1]

Which is what I was asking you to do...

--
imIf you have an argument that demonstrates that God can be scientifically verified, then by all means state it, and I will try to rebut your argument. Include whatever definition of God you wish.

[Eos of the Eons]

It would be no fun if god could be found by us. The whole game is that gods can hide from us, and keep us guessing! A god can't be a god if he can't hide from his "creations". Gotta keep things interesting.

Afterall, anything made up can hide from us, including unicorns. It would be no fun at all if they actually existed.

Mind you, some things grow horny outcroppings, just for fun once in a while. Other things, like rhinos have "fake" horns made of keratin, rather than bone.

Um. yeah. Proving god exists. You can't prove that something exists when it doesn't. It will never happen. So, you can either go along and believe that having a god is the only way to be "moral", or just know that most humans have been kind moral beings all this time without gods. It's kind of awesome to know that we can "live right" and not need some almighty force "make us" be good.

[Schneibster]

Hey, did you see the chicken that hatched with webbed feet like a duck? Cool mutation that is more useful to a duck though.What, having the body of a chicken?

Heh.

[Tisthammerw]

How to falsify this theory? Simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary. There we go, theory disproved. Can we move on now?


No. Intelligent design assumes a designer. This is untestable. It doesn't matter whether there is an experimental test of ID or not


It doesn't? If there is an experimental test for ID, wouldn't that also test the existence of a designer?

In any case, do you still maintain that ID is not falsifiable? Does not the experiment I proposed falsify ID?

[Tisthammerw]

You said ID was not falsifiable, I pointed out that I described a conceivable experiment that would falsify the theory (in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).


How does demonstrating that undirected abiogenesis is possible disprove ID?



I explained all this in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I suggest you read it so you can understand the position I am taking. A number of people here have repeatedly brought up points I have already addressed in--you guessed it--post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).

But in this case I'll save you the trouble of reading the post (I still suggest you read it however to know what my position is). First, let's recap what the theory is.

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we find on Earth.

If we show via an experiment that abiogenesis is possible and thereby demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary, ID is falsified.

[Mojo]

Do you have any evidence for the existence of a designer?

[Mojo]

But in this case I'll save you the trouble of reading the post (I still suggest you read it however to know what my position is). First, let's recap what the theory is.

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we find on Earth. Well, it's nice that you're admitting that it's a belief rather than an evidence based hypothesis, but this is a rather odd definition, and one that relies on other theories being false.

Note the difference between this and, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection of inherited variations. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence: it is not necessary to say that all other explanations are impossible.

Your approach is characteristic of ID: for example the "irreducible complexity" argument: "I can't figure out how this can have evolved so it must have been designed", or the "specified complexity" argument: "this looks really unlikely so it must have been designed".

How about proposing a way of falsifying your intelligent design hypothesis in itself, rather than by reference to other competing hypotheses?

Why not propose a definition of ID that doesn't rely on another hypothesis? For example, by defining ID as the belief that life was intelligently designed? I realise that this may cause you problems; it requires that you provide evidence supporting ID rather than just relying on a competing hypothesis not having enough evidence behind it. But if ID is to be shown to be a sufficiently robust hypothesis to make it to "theory" status, this is what it needs to do.

If we show via an experiment that abiogenesis is possible and thereby demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary, ID is falsified.Nope. If we demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, we demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible. We don't demonstrate that life was not designed, just that it was not necessarily designed.

Do you have any evidence that life was designed?

[Tisthammerw]

Okay, first, let's quibble about your "terms," since you seem rather insistent upon using nonstandard definitions. Apparently I was not clear enough in my previous posting. I will not use nonstandard definitions.


If you don't like my definitions, then don't participate in this thread

In any case, it's not clear that my definition is that far off the mark. Consider this website (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm).


Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [3]


This doesn't seem all that different from "intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth." Notably, the quote attached to [3] is a reference to William Dembski--a pretty prominent proponent of intelligent design.



I suspect that this sentiment is shared by most other members of this forum, and though I cannot speak for them, there seems to be a great deal of evidence to support my supposition based on the behavior of other members (i.e. they aren't using your definitions, no matter how many times you uselessly tell them to).


Unless of course they were not even aware of the definitions I was using despite my attempts to explain otherwise (you for instance). Misconstruing the opponent's position happens all to often in controversial issues, including the creation-evolution controversy (I recommend you read Del Ratzch's Battle of Beginnings which documents this quite well).



Sixth, and this is important, the statements I made cover every possibility, including those of your redefined terms. When I say "no experiment can falsify ID," that includes every experiment, including the one that you proposed, and I mean every reasonable kind of ID, including the ID that you are using.


Please explain. If an experiment demonstrates that intelligent causes are not necessary, why would this not falsify the theory that intelligent causes are necessary?



Incidentally, continuing to ask if I'm sure is an insult.


I did not intend it to be. The reason I asked was because you seemed quite emphatic about your statements even though you did not appear to be aware of what theory you were criticizing (even though I asked you to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) so you could understand my position before you attack it).



In case you are unaware of why, which I doubt, I will explain. You seem to be implying that you have some great insight to my mind that I don't have, despite the fact that I am currently in possession of it, and have far greater experience with it than you could possibly have.


How did I imply this? The only thing I seemed to imply by "are you sure?" was that I knew more about the situation at hand than you did (which appears to have been the case, since you did not seem to be aware of the theory you were criticizing).



Continuing on: Saying that ID is not necessary, but that it is not falsifiable is not a contradiction. Falsifiability and necessity are not the same concepts.


Quite true—unless perhaps there exists a conceivable experiment demonstrates that intelligent design is not necessary. Such an experiment would falsify the theory that ID is necessary, correct?



It really leads to the question: why would you argue about these things when you don't understand the definitions involved?


With all due respect, it seems I should be asking you this, since you evidently were unaware of the definition of "intelligent design" being used in this thread.



Regarding your "example experiment," I can only reiterate what I have already stated. My arguments cover your example experiment. In fact, my arguments cover every single experiment that might be proposed to falsify ID, including yours. If you want to argue that my logic is actually incorrect, then you must address this issue by actually attacking my logic or proving to me that my logic does not apply to your example.


Did I not do that in post #529 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2396412&postcount=529)? It didn't seem to apply because you didn't seem to be aware of the theory you were attacking. And the validity of the example I restated in post #529 seems almost tautological. "Suppose it is true that we demonstrate in a laboratory that intelligent causes are not necessary to create Earth-type life. That will disprove the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life on Earth, correct?"



"Seems a begging question," without supporting logical argument, appears to be intended only to cast doubt without actually being able to move the discussion along. If you had any real points regarding the assumption, then you should have given them.


I thought it was clear, but perhaps I was wrong. In your argument, you explicitly assumed that "observable facts point to random chance." Many ID adherents who believe ID is falsifiable--including me--disagree with that statement.



Then, you go on, a bit later, to tell me that I don't understand what theory I'm attacking, and that is the flaw in my argument.


Well, it was.

In any case it is clear I did not address your argument completely to your satisfaction (indeed, you seem to think I did not address it at all and that I "thoroughly skirted" it). I'll try to do so here.



a) Assuming that observable facts point to random chance
b) If there is an intelligent designer, then the ID must have created life in such a way that the evidence would appear as we observe it, i.e. to point to random chance
c) If an intelligent designer creates life so that the evidence appears to point to random chance, we will never be able to design an experiment, and collect evidence, that will point away from a designer, since any evidence we collect might just be fabricated by the intelligent designer to look like it points elsewhere

Conclusion: ID is not falsifiable.


What is said in (c) (we will never collect evidence "that will point away from a designer") does not seem quite true if (a) is true. Suppose (a) is true and that the observable facts point to random chance. Would it not be the case--almost by necessity--that the observable facts thus point away from intelligent design? I don't mean to say that the existence of a designer would be falsified here, only that the observable facts would point away from it and (c) does not seem quite true.

Most problematic, as I hinted at earlier, is that the conclusion just doesn't logically follow for my theory. The type of theory it seems to be arguing is not falsifiable is merely "a designer created life." I agree that this theory is probably not falsifiable. However, the theory being used in this thread "intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth." With this theory, the conclusion does not logically follow and my example is still valid. You said,


Sixth, and this is important, the statements I made cover every possibility, including those of your redefined terms. When I say "no experiment can falsify ID," that includes every experiment, including the one that you proposed, and I mean every reasonable kind of ID, including the ID that you are using.

It evidently does not cover my “redefined” terms. The validity of the example seems almost trivially true. Again, if an experiment demonstrates that intelligent causes are not necessary, would this not falsify the theory that intelligent causes are necessary?



Now, you ask: "Suppose it is true that we demonstrate in a laboratory that intelligent causes are not necessary to create Earth-type life. That will disprove the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life on Earth, correct?" So, now you're saying that your arguing for a theory of a theory.


Um, no. I'm just arguing for the theory "intelligent causes are necessary" for Earth-type life. The experiment I described would falsify this theory.




Next, you continue to say that abiogenesis cannot be falsified, even though I've told you that it's a fact. And, that's fact, not "fact." Falsifiability is a distinction that can be applied to theories, not facts.


Gravity is a fact—it is also a scientific theory. Various equations of relativity are fact—they are also (phenomenological) scientific theories. Even if abiogenesis is a fact, it is still a scientific theory. Calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not prevent it from being a scientific theory, nor does it excuse its lack of falsifiability.

And why think it is a “fact” to begin with? It is believed that undirected natural processes created Earth’s first single-celled organism, but there is no known way how this could possibly happen. So why believe it’s true when not even its possibility has been experimentally demonstrated?

Why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? The evidence for abiogenesis generally falls into the category of “known possible mechanism” (i.e. a known means whereby it could have happened). For instance, the Urey-Miller scenario has been believed to demonstrate how amino acids could have formed on the early Earth. However, when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis (as I’ll explain a little later). Abiogenesis runs into some obstacles when it comes to going from amino acids to functional proteins, but perhaps it’s doable. Abiogenesis really faces difficulties though when it comes to getting RNA under primeval Earth conditions—the obstacles are so severe it’s been called the “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare.” There is no known mechanism for abiogenesis to get RNA. In contrast, there is a rigorously known mechanism to artificially create RNA (human scientists do so). So ID beats out abiogenesis when it comes to having a known possible mechanism. So why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?

Merely calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not provide the necessary justification.



However, I can provide a general model for abiogenesis that will demonstrate how falsification experiments could be formulated for specific theories of abiogenesis, if, for instance, you were to ask, "Can you provide an experimental design that could falsify a specific theory of abiogenesis?"

....

a1 + a2 + a6 -> s0 +a3 -> s1 -> s6 + a5 -> s4 -> Life! Huzzah!

....

So, how can we use this model to show how a falsification experiment can be formulated for any particular theory of abiogenesis? Well, if any precondition can be shown to not have been the case at the time of abiogenesis, or any step can be shown to either be impossible or to not lead to the next step, then the theory will be falsified!


One problem is there is no "specific" theory of abiogenesis. There is no known way life could possibly arise via undirected natural processes. This brings us to the question of the more general theory of abiogenesis, and this theory is not falsifiable. (Unlike the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life.)

Also, keep in mind that "specific" theories of intelligent design can be similarly falsified. If a specific ID theory says that a designer could have used machine X could create life, we can test this machine to see if it works. If it doesn't, we will have falsified the theory that a designer used machine X to create life.

[Tisthammerw]

Here's what's going on. If theory A, then ~B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified. You don't have to assume the designer exists for the experiment to falsify ID.


This is the crux of your fallacious reasoning. You are then saying:
P1: If A then ~B
P2: ~B
C: Therefore, A

This is affirming the consequent (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#affirming_the_consequent), and is a logical fallacy. Proving B, or ~B, has no bearing on A.

We both made mistakes here. I made a typo, you misstated what I said. If you look at what you quoted, I actually said,

P1: If A then ~B
P2: ~B
C: ~A

As Paul pointed out though

I think Tist must have meant "If theory A, then B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified."


Later,



I think Tist must have meant "If theory A, then B. We observe ~B, therefore theory A is falsified."

~~ Paul


even then it would be
P1: If A then ~B
P2: B
C: Therefore ~A

Which is still logically fallacious in this case, because he has failed to show P1 is true.


Here's P1 in a nutshell: If intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life, then we should not find an experiment demonstrating that intelligent causes are not necessary (e.g. successfully simulating abiogenesis in the lab)." The veracity of this statement is almost tautological. If an experiment demonstrates that intelligent causes are necessary, why would this not falsify the theory that intelligent causes are not necessary?

[Tisthammerw]

But in this case I'll save you the trouble of reading the post (I still suggest you read it however to know what my position is). First, let's recap what the theory is.

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we find on Earth.


Well, it's nice that you're admitting that it's a belief rather than an evidence based hypothesis


Not necessarily. The word "belief" does not necessarily imply there is no evidence. I believe in gravity. Does that mean it has no evidence? I just used "belief" because I've seen people raise heck when I use the word "theory" and then completely miss the point of the argument.



How about proposing a way of falsifying your intelligent design hypothesis in itself, rather than by reference to other competing hypotheses? Why not propose a definition of ID that doesn't rely on another hypothesis?


Strictly speaking, I didn't refer to other hypothesis. I just said intelligent causes are necessary. This does I admit indirectly refer to competing hypothesis, but this seems to be the best way to make theory testable and falsifiable. In any case, why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? (That ID indirectly refers to other hypotheses does not seem like a valid reason, for instance.)




If we show via an experiment that abiogenesis is possible and thereby demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary, ID is falsified.


Nope. If we demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, we demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible. We don't demonstrate that life was not designed, just that it was not necessarily designed.


Then you should have said "yes" not "Nope." As I have pointed out in the very post you replied to, ID in this thread is defined as the theory that intelligent causes are necessary.



Do you have any evidence that life was designed?

The first two predictions I mentioned in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). Note for instance the difficulties for getting RNA via undirected chemical reactions under early Earth-like conditions--the obstacles are so severe it's been called the "prebiotic chemist's nightmare." And RNA is just a molecule found in life. The real miracle for abiogenesis is organizing the molecules into a single-celled organism. The obstacles for this are even more significant.

Or if you don't think the two predictions I mentioned count as evidence, what would? For instance, if I ask you what evidence is there that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created, how would you respond?

Do you have any evidence for abiogenesis? If so, what? Do you have anything (specifically) that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to abiogenesis?

[Tisthammerw]

If we observe a naturally occurring primordial soup (or simulate identical conditions of the primeval Earth) and watch life spontaneously come about, we disprove the necessity of an intelligent designer do we not? And this experiment is done without presupposing the existence of a designer, correct?


No.

First, if your experiment is conducted based on the presupposition that no designer exists, then there is no reason to conduct the experiment at all


Not necessarily. For instance, abiogenesis adherents might conduct the experiment to support their theory--and as a bonus ID is falsified (without presupposing the existence of a designer).

In any case, motives for doing an experiment don't seem particularly relevant to whether a theory is falsifiable.



Second, if the experiment succeeds, then you have not proved the non-necessity of a designer, because you cannot know that the designer did not design the universe so as anticipate your experiment and thereby create the outcome which you observe as the result.


I use the terms "design" and "natural processes" in a more everyday sense. For instance, when a forensic scientist says a person died of natural causes, the forensic scientists is speaking of the more "immediate" cause of death rather than the origins of the physical constants of the universe. It's the same thing here. By “intelligent causes” I’m speaking of a more “direct” causation in the origins of life.



You must find the designer within this universe and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification (just like you would do with any other designer who claims to have performed some experiment).

Nothing else will suffice.


It's unclear why that would be the case. Suppose for instance we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We cannot find who designed it and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification. Should we then reject the design hypothesis here based on that reason?

[Mojo]

In any case, it's not clear that my definition is that far off the mark. Consider this website (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm).Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [3]OK, let's use the difinition you've cited. How, exactly, are these causes "empirically detectable"? What evidence do you have for their existence?

[Mojo]

Then you should have said "yes" not "Nope." As I have pointed out in the very post you replied to, ID in this thread is defined as the theory that intelligent causes are necessary.So you have defined your theory in terms that can only be tested by reference to other theories. We're back to a false dilemma: "if your theory is wrong, mine is right".

Why not just produce some evidence for ID?

[SkafflocTZ]

Suppose by some mechanism, you actually manage to design and test for an intelligent designer. If we assume the intelligence is an alien species then what? At this point, you've merely moved the problem, for what mechanism was in play to create the alien life?

If the intelligent designer isn't an alien, but is some "supernatural" mechanism (i.e. god) then you really aren't practicing science now, are you.

[kjkent1]

Not necessarily. For instance, abiogenesis adherents might conduct the experiment to support their theory--and as a bonus ID is falsified (without presupposing the existence of a designer).

In any case, motives for doing an experiment don't seem particularly relevant to whether a theory is falsifiable. In my view, it is impossible to falsify a designer by presupposing the designer's existence, because the designer's existence is a logical requirement of the experiment which follows. That is: The designer exists, therefore my experiment will prove that the designer exists.

Conversely, if you presuppose that no designer exists, then the experiment to falsify the designer is meaningless, because negating nothing still equals nothing.

I use the terms "design" and "natural processes" in a more everyday sense. For instance, when a forensic scientist says a person died of natural causes, the forensic scientists is speaking of the more "immediate" cause of death rather than the origins of the physical constants of the universe. It's the same thing here. By “intelligent causes” I’m speaking of a more “direct” causation in the origins of life.I don't believe that you are doing anything other than attempting to support your belief with your belief. You aren't willing to examine your belief through any scientific lens.



Suppose for instance we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We cannot find who designed it and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification. Should we then reject the design hypothesis here based on that reason?If you find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars, then by your description of "replica," you have imputed design into this artifact. That is, you are creating a hypothetical wherein you are discovering an object which you are capable of verifying that it was constructed by an intelligence, because just like the "face" on Mars, lots of things can naturally resemble other things. But a "replica" is, by definition, something which is already "known" to be designed.

If you found a bunch of rocks on Mars, roughly arranged in a formation similar to Stonehendge, but without any evidence that it was hammered together with some ancient tools, you wouldn't know it was designed, and you would still be forced to try and determine whether it was, by some other evidence, before you ran off looking for its designer.

Anyway, You and I apparently have a different definition of "logic." This makes further conversation between us a waste of time, because we will never agree on the definition of the terms under which we are debating. Furthermore, I think we have argued this issue on another website, and it was demonstrably a useless effort.

I'm sure others will keep you busy, but I'm out.

[Tisthammerw]

In any case, it's not clear that my definition is that far off the mark. Consider this website (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm).

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [3]



OK, let's use the difinition you've cited. How, exactly, are these causes "empirically detectable"?


My short answer: the two main predictions of intelligent design I mentioned earlier (and I think these predictions have come true enough to count as some degree of evidence). You may think those predictions--even if they come true--are not enough. But then here's my question: what is? Think of it this way. We detect the presence of design in e.g. archaeology. How do we do this? Pretend I’m a person who says archaeology is pseudoscience and that the Rosetta Stone came about naturally.

Also, suppose we apply the same question for abiogenesis. How is that natural causes are detectable?




As I have pointed out in the very post you replied to, ID in this thread is defined as the theory that intelligent causes are necessary.


So you have defined your theory in terms that can only be tested by reference to other theories.


It does so only indirectly. For instance, take the theory that "in an isolated system, it necessary for entropy to increase or at best stay the same; entropy cannot decrease in an isolated system." This theory indirectly references any theory that says entropy can decrease in an isolated system (by implying that any such theories are false). In any case, I don't see any problem here. In practice (if only because of the Duhem-Quine problem) many perfectly legitimate scientific theories can only be tested by reference to other theories.



We're back to a false dilemma: "if your theory is wrong, mine is right".


This is the general reasoning of ID proponents:

1. Earth-type life began to exist (almost universally agreed upon);
2. If (1) is true, then if natural causes are insufficient to create life, then artificial causes must be behind it;
3. Natural causes are insufficient;

Conclusion: life was created artificially.

I understand you dispute the third premise, but I see no reason to doubt the second premise. Do you have another alternative?

[Tisthammerw]

Suppose by some mechanism, you actually manage to design and test for an intelligent designer. If we assume the intelligence is an alien species then what? At this point, you've merely moved the problem, for what mechanism was in play to create the alien life?


I've answered this objection and a few others in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I'll answer your questions here anyway, but I suggest you visit post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to understand what position I'm taking. (Too many have attacked positions I do not adhere to.)

You have to consider what the question is, the one ID proposes to answer. The question is not what the ultimate origin is for all life, it's the origin of Earth-type life. We might be able to rationally infer design of Earth-type life, but (at this point at least) it does not seem feasible to detect the identity of the designer via scientific means. It could be the designer is an alien who possesses a type of complexity that could come about naturally, it could be the designer is supernatural. None of these possibilities is scientifically testable.

Think of it this way. Suppose we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. Does the mere fact that we do not have an explanation for the origins of the designer mean we must reject design? Clearly not. The same is true for the origins of life on Earth (if such life was artificially created).

In any case, why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?

[Tisthammerw]

Not necessarily. For instance, abiogenesis adherents might conduct the experiment to support their theory--and as a bonus ID is falsified (without presupposing the existence of a designer).

In any case, motives for doing an experiment don't seem particularly relevant to whether a theory is falsifiable.


In my view, it is impossible to falsify a designer by presupposing the designer's existence, because the designer's existence is a logical requirement of the experiment which follows.


A scientists might presuppose the existence of a designer when keeping in mind the falsifiable prediction of intelligent design, but that doesn't seem to be any reason to reject the logic of modus tollens.

If A, then B.
~B.
Therefore, not A.

Even if a scientists assumes A is true before she conducts testing, if she finds ~B it's all over.



Conversely, if you presuppose that no designer exists, then the experiment to falsify the designer is meaningless


Not at all. If the abiogenesis adherent falsifies the necessity of the designer, it's a very happy circumstances that he has also falsified a theory he hates, is it not?




Suppose for instance we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We cannot find who designed it and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification. Should we then reject the design hypothesis here based on that reason?


If you find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars, then by your description of "replica," you have imputed design into this artifact.... a "replica" is, by definition, something which is already "known" to be designed.


Even replicas of something can be naturally created (e.g. I can artificially create a stone and nature can make a replica of the stone using natural processes). But in any case this is beside the point. The point I was making is that even if we cannot find a designer within this universe and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification--this is no reason to reject intelligent design.

You said:


You must find the designer within this universe and have him/her/it show you how to repeat the experiment of creation for your verification (just like you would do with any other designer who claims to have performed some experiment).

Nothing else will suffice.


And such a statement appears to be false. For instance, we could still rationally infer design in the Martian Stonehenge scenario.




Furthermore, I think we have argued this issue on another website


Really? Which one? Where?

[Mojo]

This is the general reasoning of ID proponents:

1. Earth-type life began to exist (almost universally agreed upon);
2. If (1) is true, then if natural causes are insufficient to create life, then artificial causes must be behind it;
3. Natural causes are insufficient;

Conclusion: life was created artificially.

I understand you dispute the third premise, but I see no reason to doubt the second premise. Do you have another alternative?You are not addressing "natural causes"; you are only addressing the current thinking about abiogenesis, just as Behe, for example, tries to prove his idea with reference only to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

That is the false dilemma you are using. If abiogenesis by the means currently being considered is not possible, that doesn't mean that ID is proven correct: there could be some other natural means of abiogenesis that hasn't been thought of yet.

[Tisthammerw]

You are not addressing "natural causes"; you are only addressing the current thinking about abiogenesis


Actually, the second prediction does not (indirectly) target any particular "natural causes" theory. Also, I wasn't talking about any specific natural causes theory when I put forth the argument I made in post #561 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2428480&postcount=561).

In short, I wasn't using the false dilemma you described. However, it is true that I've been asking the question of why one should think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design.

[kjkent1]

A scientists might presuppose the existence of a designer when keeping in mind the falsifiable prediction of intelligent design, but that doesn't seem to be any reason to reject the logic of modus tollens.

If A, then B.
~B.
Therefore, not A.

Even if a scientists assumes A is true before she conducts testing, if she finds ~B it's all over.If you really examined your proposition objectively, you would recognize the flaw and stop arguing nonsense. Your above argument is:

If the designer exists, then no evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Therefore, the designer does not exist.

Do you see the flaw in the above argument, yet?

The first statement is false. The existence of evidence for natural abiogenesis does not disprove the existence of the designer, because the designer could have designed nature to produce evidence which appears as natural abiogenesis.

So your real logical construct is:

If A, then B = Y or N.
~B
Therefore, A is unknown.

Now, if you want to prove that A is true, then what you want is:

If a designer exists, it can be located within the natural universe.
A designer is located.
Therefore the designer exists.

If A, then B
B
Therefore A.

[wwitzke]

If you don't like my definitions, then don't participate in this thread


I'll assume that you are being ironic here, since you go on to address my points, even providing definitions (for which, in both cases, I give thanks). Otherwise, I would have to take this as another insult, since you seem to be implying that you have some authority over me and can tell me what to do.


In any case, it's not clear that my definition is that far off the mark. Consider this website (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm).

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable." [3]
This doesn't seem all that different from "intelligent causes are necessary to create the type of life we see on Earth." Notably, the quote attached to [3] is a reference to William Dembski--a pretty prominent proponent of intelligent design.
It is difficult for me to believe that somebody would include the word necessary in such a theory. Here is the definition of necessary (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/necessary). It means:


1 a: of an inevitable nature : inescapable (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/inescapable) b (1): logically unavoidable (2): that cannot be denied without contradiction c: determined or produced by the previous condition of things d: compulsory (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/compulsory)2: absolutely needed : required (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/required)
Basically, Dembski's theory of ID states that there is no possibility that any cause other than an intelligent creator could give rise to life. Unfortunately, not only is this theory falsifiable, it's trivially false. It requires that there be zero probability for life to occur in any way other than through an intelligent cause, thus making intelligent causes necessary for life to arise, but even creationists agree that the chance of life arising by random chance is non-zero (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html). Also, that there is a non-zero probability follows from the fact that life is composed of basic matter (atoms/molecules). It may be that the spontaneous coming together of those molecules in the pattern of a simple single celled life form is excruciatingly small, like a "tornado in a junkyard making a 747", but that is still a non-zero probability. If there is a non-zero probability that life arose through random chance, no matter how small that probability is, it means that an intelligent creator was not necessary.

It would be different if Dembski were saying that the chances of life arising through intelligent design were much greater than the chances of life arising through random chance, but this, again, causes the theory to be non-falsifiable, since there is no way of knowing what the chances are of an intelligent designer creating life. However, he is not saying this, and it seems to me that Dembski is doing a real disservice to the cause of intelligent design by stating his original flawed theory.


skipping things that rely upon Dembski's ID theory, as those are addressed above

I did not intend it to be. The reason I asked was because you seemed quite emphatic about your statements even though you did not appear to be aware of what theory you were criticizing (even though I asked you to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) so you could understand my position before you attack it).

How did I imply this? The only thing I seemed to imply by "are you sure?" was that I knew more about the situation at hand than you did (which appears to have been the case, since you did not seem to be aware of the theory you were criticizing).
The act of asking "Are you sure?" repeatedly implied the insult, which was my point. But, as you stated that you were not intentionally trying to insult, then it's now a bit of a moot point.


skipping more things relying on Dembski's ID theory

I thought it was clear, but perhaps I was wrong. In your argument, you explicitly assumed that "observable facts point to random chance." Many ID adherents who believe ID is falsifiable--including me--disagree with that statement.

In any case it is clear I did not address your argument completely to your satisfaction (indeed, you seem to think I did not address it at all and that I "thoroughly skirted" it). I'll try to do so here.


a) Assuming that observable facts point to random chance
b) If there is an intelligent designer, then the ID must have created life in such a way that the evidence would appear as we observe it, i.e. to point to random chance
c) If an intelligent designer creates life so that the evidence appears to point to random chance, we will never be able to design an experiment, and collect evidence, that will point away from a designer, since any evidence we collect might just be fabricated by the intelligent designer to look like it points elsewhere

Conclusion: ID is not falsifiable.

Also, notice that this chain of reasoning works even if the evidence does not point to random chance. For instance, replace "random chance" with "Sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure."
What is said in (c) (we will never collect evidence "that will point away from a designer") does not seem quite true if (a) is true. Suppose (a) is true and that the observable facts point to random chance. Would it not be the case--almost by necessity--that the observable facts thus point away from intelligent design? I don't mean to say that the existence of a designer would be falsified here, only that the observable facts would point away from it and (c) does not seem quite true.
Thank you for making your objections more clear.

First, what is observed in (a) can, realistically, be anything, random chance or something else (I added a bit in the quote from my original post that made this clear). Now, (b) states that, whatever we observe, if there was an intelligent designer, then the intelligent designer must have created life in such a way that we observe whatever it is we observe.

Now, given (a) and (b), that we can never see evidence that points away from intelligent design (point (c)) follows logically. If an intelligent designer is creating life in such a way that we observe the evidence that we do actually observe, then it doesn't matter what we observe, because the intelligent designer simply created life so that the evidence appears how we observe it.

This makes intelligent design non-falsifiable because you can never observe any evidence that was not fabricated by the assumed intelligent designer. If the evidence points away from the intelligent designer, then the intelligent designer just manipulated the evidence to look as though it points away from the intelligent designer. This makes it impossible to collect evidence that would falsify the theory that the intelligent designer created life, since all evidence would be potentially tainted.

In any case, you are correct that (c) does not follow from (a) alone, but you have to take into account (b) as well. (c) does follow from (a) and (b) together. Can anyone out there provide a counter example where observed evidence would necessarily rule out an intelligent designer, regardless of the intelligent designer having manipulated/fabricated the evidence? I'll demonstrate the difficulty in doing this later when I talk about the specific example of intelligent design that you mentioned.


skipping more statements that require Dembski's ID theory

Gravity is a fact—it is also a scientific theory. Various equations of relativity are fact—they are also (phenomenological) scientific theories.
Actually, gravity isn't a fact, it is only a theory. The facts are: on Earth, when an object is released unsuspended in the air, it falls towards the ground; in space ("freefall"), unsuspended objects do not appear to fall towards anything; and so on and so forth. The theory of gravity explains these facts, but is not a fact itself.

Similarly, general relativity is a theory, not a fact.

Now, that there are large bodies of evidence supporting these theories lends a great deal of validity to the theories, as does the fact that the theories are very useful in general, but in the end they are still theories, not facts.


Even if abiogenesis is a fact, it is still a scientific theory. Calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not prevent it from being a scientific theory, nor does it excuse its lack of falsifiability.

And why think it is a “fact” to begin with?
I will explain this again. Abiogenesis is a fact because it follows necessarily from these points: a) at some time there was no life in the Universe; and b) there is now life in the Universe. This is what abiogenesis means, life arising from non-life. As I explained in a previous post, this includes theories of intelligent design. In order for you to believe that abiogenesis did not occur, then you need to believe that: a) the Universe always existed in a form that would allow life to exist; b) that life always existed in this Universe; and c) that the life that always existed in this Universe came to Earth and reproduced here, giving rise through that reproduction (a biological process) to all life on Earth. Notice that point (c) uses the word "reproduced." If a life form came to Earth and created Earthly life through some process that was not reproduction, that would still be abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis alone says nothing about what mechanisms occurred that gave rise to the life, only that at some point there was no life, and then later there was life. Theories of abiogenesis, such as intelligent design, attempt to describe this process. The word abiogenesis, however, does not. The fact that the process could not be biological follows from the fact that life is arising from non life, and a process of this nature cannot by definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biology), be biological, since it is acting only upon non-living matter.

Here's the link (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) that I was missing in the original post that describes abiogenesis (though the description of abiogenesis is rather secondary to the point that the web page is trying to make). Here's a dictionary definition of abiogenesis for you, as well (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=abiogenesis). It says:


The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.
Notice that the definition of abiogenesis says nothing about how the development from nonliving to living occurred. Also, if you look at the roots word itself, it is composed of "abio" and "genesis." That is, genesis (the creation of life) in absence (or not) of biology (that is, in absence of "life process or characteristic phenomena of a group category of living organisms" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biology)).

It's fine if you want to talk about theories of abiogenesis (and this includes intelligent design, I cannot stress this point enough), but continuing to call abiogenesis a theory is incorrect. Abiogenesis is a fact.


It is believed that undirected natural processes created Earth’s first single-celled organism, but there is no known way how this could possibly happen. So why believe it’s true when not even its possibility has been experimentally demonstrated?

Why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? The evidence for abiogenesis generally falls into the category of “known possible mechanism” (i.e. a known means whereby it could have happened). For instance, the Urey-Miller scenario has been believed to demonstrate how amino acids could have formed on the early Earth. However, when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis (as I’ll explain a little later). Abiogenesis runs into some obstacles when it comes to going from amino acids to functional proteins, but perhaps it’s doable. Abiogenesis really faces difficulties though when it comes to getting RNA under primeval Earth conditions—the obstacles are so severe it’s been called the “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare.” There is no known mechanism for abiogenesis to get RNA. In contrast, there is a rigorously known mechanism to artificially create RNA (human scientists do so). So ID beats out abiogenesis when it comes to having a known possible mechanism. So why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?

Merely calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not provide the necessary justification.
I'll assume that you meant to say "theories of abiogenesis that do not rely on an intelligent designer." This way I can address your points. First, as for your point that there is no known way for natural abiogenesis to occur, here's an article that addresses this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html), although a bit circuitously, and provides a theory that coves the evidence as it is being discovered by scientists. It shows a reasonable process for natural abiogenesis, how probability works, and a number of other things, and it provides references.

As far as the possibility of natural abiogenesis being experimentally determined, the possibility of intelligent design has not been experimentally determined either, so why believe in intelligent design? After all, no experimental evidence exists that describes the possibility that there was an intelligent designer in existence at the time of abiogenesis.

As far as "known possible mechanism" is concerned (the basis for your entire next paragraph), this is simply a "god of the gaps" argument, or argument from ignorance. That is, you are saying that, since we don't know how it happened, it must have been an intelligent designer. This is a common logical fallacy (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html). Here's another source for arguments from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

As far as whether scientific theories of abiogenesis are superior to intelligent design, here is something that explains it perfectly (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html). There are several sub-sections as well: Intelligent design theory is not religious (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html), Intelligent design is not creationism (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html), Intelligent design is mainstream (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_3.html), Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html). Just in case any of those were in your thinking.


One problem is there is no "specific" theory of abiogenesis. There is no known way life could possibly arise via undirected natural processes. This brings us to the question of the more general theory of abiogenesis, and this theory is not falsifiable. (Unlike the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life.)
There is no "general theory of abiogenesis." In fact, since intelligent design is a theory of abiogenesis, and the reference I provided (here it is again (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)) describes another theory of abiogenesis, there must, in fact, not be a general theory of abiogenesis, or we wouldn't have these two very different theories both describable as "theories of abiogenesis." (Again, the last quoted parenthetical sentence relies on Dembski's theory of ID, which I've already talked about.)


Also, keep in mind that "specific" theories of intelligent design can be similarly falsified. If a specific ID theory says that a designer could have used machine X could create life, we can test this machine to see if it works. If it doesn't, we will have falsified the theory that a designer used machine X to create life.
I'm glad that you provided this example. This theory is actually not falsifiable, and demonstrates how evidence can be manipulated by an assumed intelligent designer.

It may be true that we, as humans, cannot use machine X (let's call it a toaster) to create life. However, just because we cannot use a toaster to create life, how can we know that there are no intelligent designers that might be able to use a toaster to create life? For instance, if you suppose that there is an all-powerful god, that god could most certainly use a toaster to create life. In fact, that may be what that all-powerful god designed toasters to do originally. Afterwards, he could simply have decided that the "toaster-life mechanism" should not longer be a valid mechanism and, being all-powerful, simply changed the laws of nature so that we, as humans, could no longer use a toaster for its original purposes. Now, alas, all we can use a toaster for is to create toast.

While a bit silly, the above demonstrates that, without some idea as to who the intelligent designer is, any theory about intelligent design (baring those that use the word "necessary," since that immediately falsifies the theory) is not falsifiable. Even if you do nail down the intelligent designer by introducing artificial constraints, the theory of intelligent design is still not falsifiable, since no experiment (that can also be performed) can be formulated to determine if a proposed intelligent designer (of whom we have no knowledge) has the ability to create life in any particular way, or that the proposed intelligent designer even exists.

Wayne

[Cuddles]

Do you really see nothing wrong with the statement "Life is necessary to create life"?

ID only has two possibilities. The first is some species of super-intelligent aliens created life on Earth. This is based on the assumption that Earth life could not start by itself, but that life in general can, and did. This just raises the questions of why do we not see any evidence for any other type of life? and, given that life can start by abiogenesis, why should we assume that this was not the case on Earth. Of course, most people see straight through this right away. The only other possibility is god. Unfalsifiable and completely pointless. Most people don't see through this because they are indoctrinated into a belief in god and it therefore seems acceptable. However, this does not make it any more correct that aliens.

ID is like panspermia. It doesn't even try to answer the question, it just moves it somewhere else and hopes nobody notices. All ID says is "life exists here because life exists somewhere else", it never actually address the question of where life actually came from. Tautology is not an explanation. It is not turtles all the way down.

[wwitzke]

Do you really see nothing wrong with the statement "Life is necessary to create life"?

Not sure you're addressing me here (I hope I didn't seem in my prior post to think that there is anything to intelligent design), but I completely agree with you. Intelligent design has the problem of infinite regress, and as such does little to explain the root origins of life in general.

Sorry about responding if you weren't addressing me :)

Wayne

[Tisthammerw]

A scientists might presuppose the existence of a designer when keeping in mind the falsifiable prediction of intelligent design, but that doesn't seem to be any reason to reject the logic of modus tollens.

If A, then B.
~B.
Therefore, not A.

Even if a scientists assumes A is true before she conducts testing, if she finds ~B it's all over.


If you really examined your proposition objectively, you would recognize the flaw and stop arguing nonsense. Your above argument is:

If the designer exists, then no evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Therefore, the designer does not exist.

Do you see the flaw in the above argument, yet?


Indeed I do--but that is not my argument. To often I have seen (especially in creation-evolution debates) someone distorting the position of an opponent before attacking it (I am convinced you did this unintentionally however). I advise you to read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to understand my position before you attack it.

The theory of intelligent design as defined in this thread is the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life."

If this is true, we will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create Earth-type life. If we did, that would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary and thus would falsify the theory. That’s what my little modus tollens was modeling.

[kjkent1]

The theory of intelligent design as defined in this thread is the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life."If the intelligent cause is capable of creating the appearance of undirected chemical reactions, then your logic does not prove that what appears undirected is actually so.

Were I arguing the creationist view, and were a scientific experiment to demonstrate a chemical "soup" from which a self-replicating molecule would routinely appear given a duration which could be predicted within limits, I would simply state that God was responsible, and that the experiment only "appears" to be a spontaneous chemical reaction.

The argument of the theist is that God is omniscient and omnipresent, and that ALL occurrences in our universe are according to His plan -- including occurrences which appear to be the product of random chance.

Intelligent design cannot be disproved by producing life from what appears to be an undirected chemical reaction, because there is no means of proving that the chemical reaction was, in fact, undirected.

[Tisthammerw]

If you don't like my definitions, then don't participate in this thread


I'll assume that you are being ironic here, since you go on to address my points, even providing definitions (for which, in both cases, I give thanks). Otherwise, I would have to take this as another insult, since you seem to be implying that you have some authority over me and can tell me what to do.


No, I am not telling you what to do. But if you insist on not using the definitions in this thread, and if we are not debating what this thread is about, why participate? Why twist the definitions from what I mean to attack something I am not adhering to? There’s no reason to do that.



It is difficult for me to believe that somebody would include the word necessary in such a theory.


Well, "necessary" for all practical purposes. For instance, although it is technically possible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard to produce a 747 airplane, it is extremely, extremely unlikely. I use it in a more everyday sense, as in "intelligent causes are necessary to produce a 747 airplane." For all practical purposes, that is true. No sane person would argue if we found an airplane in the desert, that undirected natural causes produced it, since "you need a designer for that!" .

As an analogy, it is technically possible entropy to decrease in an isolated system, but the odds against it are so overwhelming that the chance is negligible.

The example experiment I described (of intelligent design being falsified) still holds under this definition.



The act of asking "Are you sure?" repeatedly implied the insult


In the future, I recommend not assuming the worst of your opponents so quickly. Initially, "Are you sure?" was just a question if you understood the situation correctly, inviting you to recheck the facts. Then, I asked because you didn't seem to be aware of what theory it is you're attacking (I explicitly said this was the reason I asked, but even then you took it as an insult and said it implied that you are somehow incapable of knowing your own mind).



Thank you for making your objections more clear.


You're welcome. I apologize if I did not do so earlier. However,


Now, given (a) and (b), that we can never see evidence that points away from intelligent design


But there is a problem here I pointed out earlier that you have not addressed. If the evidence points towards random chance being the agency responsible, would this not also point away from intelligent design?

And none of your points of the previous post applies to the definition being used in this thread as I explained earlier. ID is thus still falsifiable.



Actually, gravity isn't a fact, it is only a theory. The facts are: on Earth, when an object is released unsuspended in the air, it falls towards the ground; in space ("freefall"), unsuspended objects do not appear to fall towards anything; and so on and so forth. The theory of gravity explains these facts, but is not a fact itself.

Similarly, general relativity is a theory, not a fact.


Both are theories and both are facts. Various equations of relativity and gravity are merely descriptions of empirical regularities. They are facts. It is very surprising that you would have abiogenesis above the certainty of gravity. Bear in mind I can play the dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact) game as well. A fact is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality" and gravity certainly fits that description.




Even if abiogenesis is a fact, it is still a scientific theory. Calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not prevent it from being a scientific theory, nor does it excuse its lack of falsifiability.

And why think it is a “fact” to begin with?


Abiogenesis is a fact because it follows necessarily from these points: a) at some time there was no life in the Universe; and b) there is now life in the Universe.


Point (a)--while perhaps widely believed--is not proven. To say it is a "fact" beyond that of gravity is, I think, therefore inappropriate. We have at least observed the existence of gravity. We have not observed all locations throughout all time to verify that point (a) is true. Also, abiogenesis as being used in this thread is the more "direct" approach (that undirected chemical reactions created Earth-type life). That's the competitor being discussed here. Is this definition of abiogenesis a fact? It certainly has not been proven, and even its possibility has not been experimentally demonstrated.

If abiogenesis is defined as "some type of life arose from non-life" I do not say this theory is necessarily false. There could be some types of life that could arise naturally, even though I don't think Earth-type life is one of them.

However, I do dispute the notion that Earth-type life arose via undirected chemical reactions--and that is the definition of abiogenesis being used in this thread (it is also the main opponent of intelligent design in the scientific community--regardless of what you wish to call the theory). Is this theory scientifically superior to intelligent design? There appears to be no reason to think so.




It is believed that undirected natural processes created Earth’s first single-celled organism, but there is no known way how this could possibly happen. So why believe it’s true when not even its possibility has been experimentally demonstrated?

Why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? The evidence for abiogenesis generally falls into the category of “known possible mechanism” (i.e. a known means whereby it could have happened). For instance, the Urey-Miller scenario has been believed to demonstrate how amino acids could have formed on the early Earth. However, when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis (as I’ll explain a little later). Abiogenesis runs into some obstacles when it comes to going from amino acids to functional proteins, but perhaps it’s doable. Abiogenesis really faces difficulties though when it comes to getting RNA under primeval Earth conditions—the obstacles are so severe it’s been called the “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare.” There is no known mechanism for abiogenesis to get RNA. In contrast, there is a rigorously known mechanism to artificially create RNA (human scientists do so). So ID beats out abiogenesis when it comes to having a known possible mechanism. So why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?

Merely calling abiogenesis a “fact” does not provide the necessary justification.



I'll assume that you meant to say "theories of abiogenesis that do not rely on an intelligent designer." This way I can address your points. First, as for your point that there is no known way for natural abiogenesis to occur, here's an article that addresses this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)


Not quite. It rebuts probability arguments from abiogenesis opponents, but it does not really present e.g. a mechanism for the primordial Earth to get RNA. There still appears to be no scientific reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design (in the definitions as I am using them).

Additionally, it ignores some chemical problems. It talks about dissolving a bunch of amino acids in the lake, and eventually the amino acids produce a given peptide sequence. But how would they form proteins there? The presence of water powerfully impedes protein formation. And yet water is highly abundant on the Earth (he also talks about putting the amino acids in the ocean). This is called the "water problem" and presents an obstacle that the author does not deal with. Perhaps abiogenesis can overcome this obstacle, but trying to get e.g. RNA under early Earth conditions has such severe obstacles it's been called the prebiotic chemist's nightmare. What's worse, RNA is only a molecule found in life. The real miracle for abiogenesis is assembling the molecules to form a complex single-celled organism without the aid of artificial intervention. This brings us to the question: why believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID? There appears to be no reason to think so.



As far as the possibility of natural abiogenesis being experimentally determined, the possibility of intelligent design has not been experimentally determined either


True, but is is considerably closer than abiogenesis, e.g. in artificially creating RNA and DNA. Before this century is over, it is likely that scientists will find a means to artificially create life--and abiogenesis will still have no known mechanism to work with and serious obstacles will still remain.



As far as "known possible mechanism" is concerned (the basis for your entire next paragraph), this is simply a "god of the gaps" argument


No, it is an inference to the best explanation. Think about this: we have two theories A and B about how event E happened. Theory A has an experimentally demonstrated known mechanism for E. There is no known possible mechanism by which B could possibly produce E. Instead, B runs into obstacles that theory A predicts. So why on Earth should we believe that theory B is scientifically superior to theory A?



That is, you are saying that, since we don't know how it happened, it must have been an intelligent designer. This is a common logical fallacy (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html).


Actually, I am not saying that at all. And I don't think the fallacy is as common as the authors of that website might think. Talk.origins is not immune to (likely unintentionally) distorting the position of the opponent--as you have done for the second time in this post alone.



As far as whether scientific theories of abiogenesis are superior to intelligent design, here is something that explains it perfectly (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html). There are several sub-sections as well: Intelligent design theory is not religious (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html), Intelligent design is not creationism (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html), Intelligent design is mainstream (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_3.html), Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html). Just in case any of those were in your thinking.


It would be best if you put a specific objection here, instead of referencing web pages with vast quantities of reading material. Much of what is written in the links makes little sense to our discussion. For instance,


"Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design."


That hardly applies here, since "design" does mean the "normally understood" meaning. Additionally, it to some extent misrepresents Dembski (a person the author is criticizing). Dembski has his problems, but his "argument from ignorance" is not quite accurate. He believes if we rule out law and chance, we can infer design for a given event. He may have his facts wrong (that law and chance cannot be intelligently ruled out of the origins of life) but it's not an argument from ignorance.

Also, take for instance "Intelligent design theory is not religious (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html)." The crux of this page is that "The ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint." But motivations do not make a theory religious. William Lane Craig promotes the big bang theory in his atheism-theism debates for religious reasons, but this does not make the theory religious. The stated motive for Newton in promoting some of his theories was to promote belief in God, but this does not make his theories religious. Notably, the stated motive for Enlightenment thinkers in promoting Newton's theories was to destroy religion. Contradictory motivations do not make theories religious either.

Likewise, there appears to be no reason to think that the theory of "intelligent causes are necessary..." to be religious.

To use another case, in "Intelligent design is not creationism (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html)" at least some of what it says does not apply. For instance, there is no mention of "supernatural design" to make the theory as defined here "creationism." Also, I think this "supernatural" business may be yet another case of distorting the opposition (see this ID web page (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn't%20Intelligent%20Design%20refer%20to%20some thing%20supernatural.htm) and especially this ID web page (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565)).

To use yet another case, "Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html)" says that "Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process" but this is evidently not the case. An investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal agency, had this to say:


They also assumed that you [Sternberg] violated editorial regulations of the [i]Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known.


You can verify this for yourself here (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp).

I can mention many other things, but this is beyond the scope of this post (it’s long enough as it is). My little peruse of the web pages found nothing that would make abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design. To be fair, I did not read the vast quantities of reading material thoroughly, but only because experience has lead me to believe I wouldn't find anything relevant and useful. If you can look in those web pages and give me a specific reason why abiogenesis is scientifically superior (instead of referencing them and hoping the answer is there), this would be more productive. Given the format of this discussion, it’s better to deal with a given reason one or a few at a time instead of all at once (again, consider how long this post is). Can you give me even one specific scientific reason to favor abiogenesis (“undirected natural processes created Earth-type life”) over intelligent design (“intelligent causes are necessary…”)?




One problem is there is no "specific" theory of abiogenesis. There is no known way life could possibly arise via undirected natural processes. This brings us to the question of the more general theory of abiogenesis, and this theory is not falsifiable. (Unlike the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life.)


There is no "general theory of abiogenesis."


I'm referring to the definitions being used in this thread. Abiogenesis (the belief that undirected natural processes created Earth-type life) is not falsifiable.


there must, in fact, not be a general theory of abiogenesis, or we wouldn't have these two very different theories both describable as "theories of abiogenesis."


Think about this. What do those two different theories of abiogenesis have in common? They both fit my definition of abiogenesis as I explained earlier (that undirected natural processes created Earth-type life). That’s what I was referring to when I said “general theory of abiogenesis.” This theory is not falsifiable.




Also, keep in mind that "specific" theories of intelligent design can be similarly falsified. If a specific ID theory says that a designer could have used machine X could create life, we can test this machine to see if it works. If it doesn't, we will have falsified the theory that a designer used machine X to create life.


I'm glad that you provided this example. This theory is actually not falsifiable, and demonstrates how evidence can be manipulated by an assumed intelligent designer.

It may be true that we, as humans, cannot use machine X (let's call it a toaster) to create life. However, just because we cannot use a toaster to create life, how can we know that there are no intelligent designers that might be able to use a toaster to create life?


That objection doesn't apply to specific theoretical scenarios. For instance, we know that if the designer tried to create life the exact way we did (e.g. plugging in the toaster to a 120 volt source of a specified electrical frequency, putting in a 1 centimeter sphere of carbon etc.) the designer would not get life. Thus, this "specific" theory is falsifiable (as falsifiable as we can get in science anyway).

[Tisthammerw]

The theory of intelligent design as defined in this thread is the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life."


If the intelligent cause is capable of creating the appearance of undirected chemical reactions, then your logic does not prove that what appears undirected is actually so.


I agree, but my logic was not attempting to prove that at all.

Notice the theory being used here. If an experiment demonstrates that intelligent causes are not necessary (because undirected chemical reactions produce Earth-type life) this theory is falsified (about as close as science can get to falsification anyway).



Were I arguing the creationist view, and were a scientific experiment to demonstrate a chemical "soup" from which a self-replicating molecule would routinely appear given a duration which could be predicted within limits, I would simply state that God was responsible, and that the experiment only "appears" to be a spontaneous chemical reaction.


Technically yes, but such an ad hoc hypothesis would prevent any theory from being falsifiable. For instance, when an astronaut or satellite goes around the Earth, it only "appears" to be round because some enormously powerful entity is making it appear that way. As I said, ID is about as close to falsification as science can get. If we set up an experiment mimicking the primordial Earth conditions and bacteria come about, ID can be practically said to be falsified just like the Earth-is-flat theory.

[Tisthammerw]

Do you really see nothing wrong with the statement "Life is necessary to create life"?


That is not the case. One thing I see wrong with it is that it leads to an infinite regression of life creating life. Thankfully, I do not adhere to the statement you just mentioned. I believe that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life, but not necessarily all possible forms of life. This leaves open the possibility that other forms of life might be formed naturally.



ID only has two possibilities. The first is some species of super-intelligent aliens created life on Earth. This is based on the assumption that Earth life could not start by itself, but that life in general can, and did. This just raises the questions of why do we not see any evidence for any other type of life?


Perhaps because we are so largely isolated in the universe at our current point in time? It's not as if we have the starship Enterprise going around checking for life throughout the galaxy. We are simply not in a position to really know whether intelligent life exists on other worlds.



and, given that life can start by abiogenesis, why should we assume that this was not the case on Earth.


If Earth-type life can be created via random-chance, why think androids cannot be created via random-chance? Obviously, some kinds of complexity require a designer and some do not. Even if Earth-type life requires a designer, why think that therefore all possible types of life require one? Such a hypothesis does not seem very testable (at this point at least).

[kjkent1]

I agree, but my logic was not attempting to prove that at all.

Notice the theory being used here. If an experiment demonstrates that intelligent causes are not necessary (because undirected chemical reactions produce Earth-type life) this theory is falsified (about as close as science can get to falsification anyway).How do you prove that the chemical reactions are undirected, unless you know that the designer did not interfere?Technically yes, but such an ad hoc hypothesis would prevent any theory from being falsifiable. For instance, when an astronaut or satellite goes around the Earth, it only "appears" to be round because some enormously powerful entity is making it appear that way. As I said, ID is about as close to falsification as science can get. If we set up an experiment mimicking the primordial Earth conditions and bacteria come about, ID can be practically said to be falsified just like the Earth-is-flat theory.You have just explained why no scientific hypothesis can proceed from the axiom of an intelligent designer.

Science requires that the default axiom of nature is that all things are random ignorant chance until proved to be otherwise. Were this not the case then, as you show with your satellite example, an intelligent cause could always be the reason for anything which is not yet understood.

Your hypothesis proposes that life is designed as an axiom, because in order to falsify design by experiment, the hypothesis must presume design. Otherwise, there is no design to falsify.

You cannot propose any scientific hypothesis which proceeds from the default position that things are designed until proved otherwise, because to do so is not scientific. It's theistic.

The proper scientific hypothesis is to presume that life arose by random chance, until proved otherwise. If you do this, then you can absolutely falsify random chance, but demonstrating the existence of a designer who designed life.

[delphi_ote]

I believe that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life, but not necessarily all possible forms of life. This leaves open the possibility that other forms of life might be formed naturally.
Why postulate other forms of life for which there is no evidence when a perfectly logical explanation exists which covers all the existent evidence.

[Mojo]

I believe that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life, but not necessarily all possible forms of life. This leaves open the possibility that other forms of life might be formed naturally.

Your claim in this thread is that, as far as "Earth-type life" is concerned, ID is better supported than abiogenesis via undirected chemical reactions.

We have evidence that at least some of the chemicals needed for "Earth-type life" can be produced by undirected reactions.

If ID is to be even as well-supported as undirected abiogenesis, then you need to produce some evidence for the existence of a designer.

To support your claim, you need to produce evidence that forms of life other than "Earth-type life" have existed, and that at least some of these forms of non "Earth-type life" can have arisen spontaneously without intelligent intervention. If you can't produce the former, you have no "designer", and if you can't produce the latter you have no mechanism by which the "designer" can have arisen, other than by means of an infinite number of turtles.

[Beerina]

If you really examined your proposition objectively, you would recognize the flaw and stop arguing nonsense. Your above argument is:

If the designer exists, then no evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Evidence for natural abiogenesis exists.

Therefore, the designer does not exist.

Do you see the flaw in the above argument, yet?

The problem with that is ID defenders also fall prey to it -- to prove a "god of the gaps", they must attempt to shoot down every argument about how life was created and evolved. Then, god did it by default (which is also a bogus argument, but seems to satisfy some.)

If IDers accept a non-trivial chance of life arising naturally, then they've lost their primary argument.

If all they're left with is a highly plausible natural mechanism and ID, then ID loses the debate swiftly both as a violation of Occam's Razor, and purely on the surface plausibility of it as an explanation for bizarre natural "design" (e.g. evolution explains things like a tailbone, large nerve cluster prone to headaches, upright position such that things fall down into the lungs, etc., ad nauseum that ID really has to hem and haw about.)

[Wowbagger]

Tisthammerw,
Let me ask you a simple question:

If Intelligent Design is superior to abiogenesis, then how come ID has not, yet, increased our understanding of nature?
How come, even with their seemingly vague clues, abiogenesis theories have been able to help us understand the nature of organic molecules to a much more refined degree?

Isn't it a test of true science to get empirical results, one way or the other: positive, negative, or "inconclusive but yielding facts for further study".
How much new empirical information has actually been discovered via Intelligent Design arguments?